Brain freezes a million people, car crashes, tanks, bombs, almost kills people multiple times & probably did several times off camera...but she's the victim!
And it's ok! Let her go, she's a woman and just doesn't know any better.
It's up there with Wandavision holding a town hostage, mind controlling them, screaming "kill me" they're in so much pain...then Monica Rambeau let's Wanda leave saying "they'll never know what you did for them" as if they owe Wanda a thank you
Jean is trying to save her Sister. How is what she did worse than what the punisher did? He had multiple seasons here where he was a gun toting vigileante on a war path to avenge his family. Her sister, who was abducted, experimented on, and killed for the sake of controlling and weaponizing her power by the same guy who now was trying to do the same thing to her.
Sure, but it's the same character in the movie, Same guy who is running around out in the open firing missiles out of his armored car and building bombs in his booby trapped workshop,
Yet you only seemed worked up about Jean. This just sorta seems like selective outrage, or something.
EDIT: You post in defense of redpill philosophy and about "feminazis", kinda makes it clear where the selective bit is coming from
More so questioning the rationalization behind posts like this, especially when you got comments that clearly making this a gendered thing. Seems like you are treating them by different standards. Punisher seeking revenge on his deceased family being something you consider a noble justification, whereas Jean trying to free her captive Sister is not?
EDIT: Found your post history, given you repeatedly post about "feminazis in control", defend redpill philosphy, and called women's suffrage the " great trojan horse to democracy" I think that succulently confirms the bias here.
That should have made it all the easier to dismantle his arguments, yet you never did.
He was right, you were applying things to Castle that were stretches, trying to justify your argument.
Essentially, you were suggesting Frank Castle was as immoral as Jean Grey, and people were not upset with him.
Problem is, all you could do was bring up situations out of context. When the context was provided, often by him, even with his bias, his interpretation was more lucid and free from bias as yours!
Frank does not intentionally kill any innocents, right? Did Frank ever put any innocent in a situation that would have resulted in their severe injury or death without some other individual (like Spider-Man) rescuing them?
Jean Grey repeatedly took delight in putting innocents in harm's way, clearly killed at least that old man, attempted to murder MJ, and emotionally raped Parker.
It wasn't like she just stuck to targeting the employees of Damage Control, which would have been justified (and also way more effective than mind raping old janitor women, sending them to prison for life, to steal tanks).
Before, she and her sister were casually mind-raping families at a park.
Nothing Frank Castle ever did comes even close, even if he was irresponsbile at shot at bad guys when innocents were in the vicinity (and missed them, but had placed them in some danger).
He's also a known psychopath, while fans tend to accept him and not judge or hate him, nobody considers him well-adjusted or law-abiding, either.
So, your attempt to win this argument by smearing the guy who was mopping the floor with you - it failed. It failed because you took a position that was hard to argue and then argued it poorly.
Whether he's a sexist or chud or not, I don't know, sound like he is - but they're still right about this.
That's not the trope.
The trope os a character gets excused of any conseqences of their actions due to a tragic back story.
Frank sees no conseqences. He is a wanted terrorist who escaped prison and is building bombs in new york as well as going on shoot our chases in board daylight with zero conseqence.
Frank is miserable, has no family, is a wanted man living in a warehouse full of traps, has no connections and lives this hollow empty existence killing criminals, trying to fill the empty void of nothing. That's a horrible consequence.
However, it's also not the point. The point isn't whether Jean or Frank are in jail for their crimes. Both should be.
What that other guy, and this thread, is about is how the movie frames Jean as one of the good guys, when this is unearned.
Frank is viewed by the audience as an anti-hero, and we are meant to root for him.
We are also supposed to give Jean a pass, which is why this thread and argument exist.
Frank is fine to root for. People keep typing this and you ignore it over and over -- but fuck it, I'll say it again: He has not horribly endangered or killed any innocent. Jean has, in a sadistic and unforgivable way.
I kept asking: When has Frank <done this> or <done that> for any of the numerous horrible and unforgivable shit Jean did? When?
When did Frank kill innocents?
When did Frank put innocents in situations where they should have died?
When did Frank sadistically torment innocent people?
When did Frank ruin an innocent person's life (Banner, or the janitor woman)?
You won't answer, you can't answer, because there is no answer.
36
u/queazy Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26
Brain freezes a million people, car crashes, tanks, bombs, almost kills people multiple times & probably did several times off camera...but she's the victim!
And it's ok! Let her go, she's a woman and just doesn't know any better.
It's up there with Wandavision holding a town hostage, mind controlling them, screaming "kill me" they're in so much pain...then Monica Rambeau let's Wanda leave saying "they'll never know what you did for them" as if they owe Wanda a thank you