Watched the first episode of Killer Mike's show. El-P's hilarious douchiness was the most redeeming thing about it tbh. I didn't have very high expectations for it anyways.

heard thats a good show^

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress...on-3.jpg?w=535

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/louie-mom-111.jpg

loving this show. louie anderson is a gem.

I find the last interviews with him just before being executed reinforce the idea that sociopaths are kind of uninteresting to talk to. They're just too focused on pretense to actually have any merit in getting meaningful discussion from. It's interesting to watch them speak but as far as getting any kind of mutual connection through ideas it's a complete wash. You're really just looking for kinks in their sociopath armor.

Speaking of Netflix docs, I've been watching Evil Genius, which is about the Brian Wells case where he was forced to rob a bank (among other things) in order to deactivate the bomb around his neck. It's pretty fascinating.

https://images.justwatch.com/poster/...92/evil-genius

Proto-Suicide Squad?

The concept of superheroes is romanticization of extra-judicial justice though. If it's not regular humans beating up criminals to get info it's superhumans taking information out of the equation to essentially be cartoon big brother. Or doing both.

Superheroes in a real sense is a ****ed concept. It has "good" relevance in the sense of expressing the desire for justice in the face of the systemic injustice that exists in every society that people recognize and feel powerless in the face of. But there's no way to divorce that from the fascist desire for a strong person to solve your problems for you.

This is why you don't take superhero stories literally as if they have any immediate answer to your problems. This is how we get police officers with Punisher skull stickers on their cars. So just forget about the stupid elements.

Yes, on the one hand it is the desire of the people to rectify the inability of society of the state, not only to solve crime, but to decide what the citizen's relation to crime is. Is the citizen's relationship to crime as a victim, as a fighter, or as a solver. The difference between the last two being the crux. Are you taking up the cause of the victims or are you taking up the cause of making society function properly?
The problem of the superhero is that it encourages you to ignore the idea of the solver because of course you want to side with the victim. You want to take them by the shoulders and assure them that it won't happen again. And then you physically turn away from them and screw up your face to deal with the perpetrator, with the assumption that you are keeping your feelings with the victim and not the perpetrator.

Look at my avatar. This choice does not come from a desire to solve problems. This comes from a desire to see conflict. This comes from a desire to ignore the plight of the victim once I have seen it and now I can commence to make war as is raw and manly. This avatar comes from a desire to solve crime by way of satisfaction. Watching Daredevil beat the **** out of criminals comes from exactly the same place no matter how ****ing awesome it is.

idk if i would call his urges uncontrolled - he had to get himself blackout drunk in order to carry out his attacks.

I find it rather hard to keep myself from getting quite drunk on a regular basis tbh. Like really quite drunk, even blackout drunk at times. It's kinda hard to even convince myself that I should try to stay reasonably drunk. It's not even an issue of convincing myself generally, just if my metabolism makes me super drunk or I don't even remember drunk. If I had an uncontrollable urge behind my thoughts then perhaps sobriety might be a paper tiger where bringing it up as a possible hindrance to my urges might be like saying that you should keep your legs closed if you don't want to get pregnant.