I remember chatting with Paul Dini about a character he wanted to create - someone who was mad in both senses of the word: angry and crazy. Paul rewarded me for my enthusiasm by naming the character after me. Sadly, I never wrote any dialogue for my namesake. - Stan B
While I feel that R'as al Ghul and Poison Ivy are pretty good "leftist" villains (one the embodiment of ecofascism and the other promoting ecology to destroy humanity rather than protect it), I'll always have a soft spot for Mad Stan. "No more graft! No more payoffs! NO MORE JURY DUTY!!!"
As someone who works in library and cares about education and accessible information, I'm appalled by Mad Stan's plan to blow up the archives. The information wants to be free, not burnt to a crisp! T_T
He makes me think of the terminally online who think the universe revoles around them and go ballistic at seeing anything they disagree with crossed with the Unabomber
หลายเดือนก่อน +24
The screaming and ranting makes it pretty apparent on the former, yeah.
I think that the generalization of anarchism as a left ideology comes mostly from the historical example of real world anarchists being of the left leaning versions of it (like anarcho-comunism or anracho-syndicalism), thus giving anarchism that left leaning tint despite the base ideology being anti-political
It is difficult to depict the failed ideologies as anything more than cartoonish caricatures even in more serious media. I think it's because most of the reference material that gets used is old propaganda.
Imagine my shock and feeling of irony that my favorite villain from Legend of Korra (Zaheer) is voiced by the same one who voices Man Stan. What is ironic is that zaheer is calm and soothing in his talking while mad Stan is loud and energetic
Zaheer is pretty much Mad Stan if he was given an actual intellectual brain. Zaheer understands how the system works and more importantly, he knows how to break it with the minimalist effort.
@SerumLake I theorize that mr stan is an ex vet, with a background in wrestling given his technique that regularly gives Terry trouble while being able to expertly infiltrate buildings and strategically place explosives. They could've done a story on how he went insane resulting from dissolution with his prior work for the government
It's a shame that we never got a good animated version of Anarky (Lonnie Machin). I feel like it's because most people don't understand anarchist political philosophy very well and still use the stereotype of the bomb-throwing maniac as a way to present anarchists. Anarky has a lot of nuance to him...if the writers allow for it. If I remember right, Alan Grant was slightly regretful of the fact that Anarky didn't become Batman's sidekick at some point. However, I feel that, at the basis of that character is a fundamental disagreement with Batman and what he represents. That could all be very interesting and fascinating to explore but it's sad that the character seems to have been kind of discarded.
When you need someone to voice an anarchist, you go to Henry Rollins. He brought us the delusional Mad Stan in Batman Beyond and the philosophical Zaheer in The Legend of Korra. Sure, Mad Stan was never the main villain of a story, but as a large man of questionable sanity with access to explosives, he was still something of a threat. And sometimes, you just need a lunatic with alot of explosives.
I'd say Mad Stan is more akin to being sovereign citizen/conspiracy theorist on the extreme than anything else. Since most of his grievances are about the government existing and society requiring him to contribute to for living in it but unlike most sov cits and conspiracy nuts he's more than willing to violently do something about what he views as unjust authority lording over everyone. Mad Stan also has big 'taxation is theft' energy.
Mad Stan would totally be a Sov Cit if those had been thing in the general cultural zeitgeist at the time the show came out, you raise some very good points.
That's a good topic since it shows off what is happening in today's world with teenagers liking something that may seem unethical like vaping, tiktok trends etc and the parents worrying about it and it's effects on their kids. Look at the satanic panic of the 80s!
I actually found it really touching how much he cared about his dog, it just adds a little bit of humanity to a character I’d probably think of as nothing more than a joke character. Like he IS a joke character, but it gives me something to be interested in
Stan's final appearance taught viewers a good lesson. Just because someone is insane, does not mean they are stupid. It Is a shame that Stan did not make anymore appearances in the dcau (of course I can say the same thing 4 other characters in the dcau). He may have been a minor villain but he was the most entertaining villain of Terry's rogues gallery
Batman shining the flashlight left and right as you said "left leaning" and "right leaning" is an underrated moment. It's the little things like that make you a great editor.
Mad Stan reminds me of Amon from LoK. So obsessed with their ideology that they don't see or care who they hurt or the negative ramifications of their ideology. However in Lok Amon is taken seriously but in BB, they know that he's an extremist and not to be taken as anything more than a parody.
Mad Stan, somewhat underutilised in the series, but there were few joke villains amongst Terry's rogues' gallery so it's not a big surprise, being just a normal, if deluded, guy really makes it hard to stand up to gene technicians, cult, a meltdown-man or an ellusive illusionist. House and Garden: An episode that both humanised and dehumanised Poison Ivy beyond what I had ever expected. Looking forward to your take on it.
I like Mad Stan he’s funny, I find it hard to believe that his voice actor Henry Rollins was mugged once that his friend died in a show called Unsolved Mysteries which I kinda feel bad for and that line Information overload was from Johnny Mnemonic.
I still ascribe to the Horseshoe Theory. The further Left or Right you go the less differences there are between you and the opposite faction. My that model though Anarchism isn't on the left or right side of the Horseshoe. It's the one who picked up the horseshoe and threw it at the Neighbors' Cat.
Anarky (the character) has been framed as being mostly left-wing in his beliefs.
หลายเดือนก่อน +4
@@Regenmacher175 He at times comes off more as tankie (Stalinist) in his wording and methodology which shows hes as much a misguided dolt as many other villains.
Thing I love about Mad Stan is that's he isn't really much of a threat in the grand scheme of things. He's just a pesky constant thorn in Batman's side. Yet he is still just dangerous enough to not fully underestimate. He's very much a modern update of Batman villains like Crazy Quilt and Calendar Man of the late 50s and 60s.
I love the scene where he tries to blow the Library. Batman Beyond is like, "Yeah right like books are gonna kill you' and Mad Stan is like "Information overload man." That always makes laugh.
Ironically enough, Henry Rollins would voice another anarchist character. In the sequel to Avatar: The Last Airbender, the Legend of Korra, he voiced Book 3 Antagonist, Zaheer, who, like Mad Stan, wants to topple governments.
Also somehow a contrast since Zaheer is more intellectual type and even try to debate with Korra that had interesting point on how the world is essentially Avatar doing what they please and maintain a status quo (though consider that everyone is itching for a fight after they die…and caused a century long conflict that saw a genocide…also maybe angry spirits that seem to pop out and would have caused catastrophe had it not been for Aang. Though you can argue that prequel novels was showing how “it seem like a good idea” can bite back for later avatar.)
Well, maybe comparing to Mad Stan, he tends to be seen as “reasonable”…maybe pseudo philosophical lecture instead of rants might have been subtle as a caricature. Though he’s not Ursula LeGuin.
And basically succeeds. The events of Season 4 wouldn't have happened if it weren't for his surprising success rate. Meantime, the Earth Queen deserved it.
@@michaelandreipalon359 I agree with you on that. The Airbenders in her city didn’t have to serve her, what she did is basically human trafficking. And I absolutely hate people who commit that atrocity, and it absolutely doesn’t matter, if you’re a ruler, a thug wanting to make a quick buck, or God only knows what else, they’re not your property!
Mad Stan is one of the funniest villains I’ve seen. His over-the-top reactions and rants make my sides hurt every time I see him. I even dressed up as Mad Stan once for Halloween.
I hear a fantheory that says that Mad Stan is the son of Lock-Up. As for why he returned in the comics... The creator got some criticism from a friend about "killing" Mad Stan, so he brought him back.
I honestly disagree about Anarchism not being a left-wing ideology. Anarchism ascribes to the notion that the state serve only to oppress in order to defend the ruling classes interests, and that it should be dismantled. Differently from communists, anarchists don't believe in a transitional period to deal with the remnants of capitalism and want to just jump the gun straight to a stateless society. Of course, anarchism is very diverse and there's a myriad of ideas. From the more collectivist Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-syndicalists to more individualist lines like Anarcho-Egoism. Right winged 'anarchists' like Anarcho-capitalists and the like are not anarchists, they're neo-feudalists or corporatocrats
Mad Stan got a mention in Babel I thibk it was. Bruce and Terry were fixing the suit and when asked how he managed to damage it, Terry notes he dodged Mad Stan's grenade, but he had two
Funny enough since comics are involved; major comic writer Alan Moore, the creator of Watchmen, identifies an anarchist and his famous V for Vendetta is actually pro-Anarchism, as opposed to the film adaptation which has a more hopeful, uplifting ending; the comic ends with Britain falling into chaos and that is hinted as a good thing.
i saw it more as that with norsefire gone there's a CHANCE at a better future, and whether people will actually use it to build a better Britain or descend back into fascism is up in the air. but it's better than no chance at all that people had under norsefire.
here in the US for decades right wing types have coopted anarchist language such that libertarian types are usually crypto far right; thus they argue for anarcho-capitalism as you describe; left wing anarchist argue not just for dissolving or minimizing the state but for replacing it with a civil society because the state has an incentive to side with the rich; to left anarchists their system sees itself as bringing democracy to all things. I always saw mad stan as a populist violent reactionary; his motivations do not matter cause his means do not match his motivations and his means create far more harm then good. Mad Stan would be travis in taxi driver
A good rule of thumb for separating left wing Anarchists from right wing Libertarians is “which podcast/radio would this person listen to /agree with”, Behind the Bastards with Robert Evans, or Info Wars with Alex Jones… and I think a strong argument can be made for the latter…
@@ttthttpdHow so? How is allowing the people to decide their own laws tyrannical to anyone who doesn't just want an excuse to control or exploit other people? Funny how the right loves to defer to societal debate and the "marketplace of ideas" when trying to justify their attempts to sell their slop, but when that marketplace threatens to become the basis for society, you all get very very scared. It's almost like you are self aware enough to know all the awful things you want wouldn't fly in a free and fair society.
@@ttthttpd How so? How is allowing the people to decide their own laws tyrannical to anyone who doesn't just want an excuse to control or exploit other people? Funny how the right loves to defer to societal debate and the "marketplace of ideas" when trying to justify their attempts to sell their slop, but when that marketplace shows potential to become the basis for society, you all get very very scared. It's almost like you are self aware enough to know all the terrible things you want wouldn't fly in a free and fair society.
@@ttthttpdHow so? How is allowing the people to decide their own laws tyrannical to anyone who doesn't just want an excuse to control or exploit other people? Funny how the right loves to defer to societal debate and the "marketplace of ideas" when trying to justify their attempts to sell their slop, but when that marketplace shows potential for becoming the basis for society, y'all get very very scared. It's almost like there is self awareness of how awful RW beliefs and policies actually are, and that they would never fly in a truly free and fair society...
Luminus was such an underestimated villain that it was a shame he's never been used in other medium: a guy who risked his career to help Lois Lane expose corruption in Lex Luthor and lost everything with Lois barely/lacking any gratitude turning him into a vengeful stalker. His skills in light engineering were incredible as not only could he create dense light holograms to physically interact/attack bit could manipulate sunlight in order to depower Superman.
I wouldn't call R'as Al Ghul "Leftist", cause Environmentalism is actually trait that a certain political party in the 1930s and 40s heavily pushed, and, at least in the TAS universe, Ras shares several other values with members of that party and their associates, namely Eugenics and Population control. Ivy totally was, though, she basically went as far with "Eat the Rich" as she could in a PG show.
@@entothechesnautknight1762 you can argue eugenics were also something of a left-leaning policy at least when it comes to the American point of view. In America eugenics were primarily used in the context of evolution, like those people were inferior so them having children was just kinda a mistake
@@entothechesnautknight1762 population control is sort of non-political. Same with eugenics. Fascists use egenics for inferior peoples but the left in the US used eugenics with the excuse of evolution. And population control was a mandatory law in communist China
While I have no issues with villains having values on either side. I do think it is important to have a fair number of villains on both sides of the political spectrum. Mainly to show the finer nuances of society. That said, I think we all can agree, that it all comes down to the quality of the writing.
@@goni2493except until Arkham, he was mainly an anti-hero that was generally a neutral to positive interpretation of an anarchist before Arkham sort of turned him into a generic “I have great points but do villainous actions” type of antagonist.
"House and Garden" kind of reminds me of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", since Ivy was creating humanoid replicates of Dr. Carlysle that turned into alien-like abominations. I feel like that one episode in TNBA with Bruce Wayne marrying Susan was also a reference to movies like "They Live" & other films with plots involving of sci-fi horror and human-disguised imposters.
Gotta miss that era though. Fiction needs to bring back memetic loser terrorists akin to G.I. Joe and that Godzilla cartoon... but keep the hyper-competent rogue states and organizations popularized by Justice League Unlimited and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
I like the way you think, because I was thinking the same exact thing LOL. But mad stan is based on the unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. Alot of redpill dudes idolize these guys.
7:16 Honestly in BTAS, Professor Milo got the same treatment, aside from a small cameo on the cover of an issue of Gotham Adventures. That's pretty disappointing.
My favorite scene with Mad Stan was where he declared that there was no more Jury Duty. Poor son of a gun will be so angry when he finds out he didn’t destroy it.
Mad Stan is a great comical villain. While he is potentially very dangerous unstable man with explosives, the fact we never see any of his plots succeed makes it safe for us to laugh at someone who seemingly just looking for a excuse to blow stuff up. Mad Stan is similar to The Midnight Bomber that Bomb at Midnight from The Tick... only angrier.
leftist villains are probably less common because often they're just hypocrites, or inept. sorta not making them left wing at all. stalin would be left wing, but he didn't really believe in equality despite communism being for it did he? an inept antagonist isn't really as exciting for a villain to fight as one who's more active but i think it can be considered that lots of super villains take advantage inept systems to get out of jail, but that doesn't really make them left wing either
Leftist villains or anti-villains could make effective manipulator types though. Imagine having some kind-seeming, real benevolent President unconditionally befriending, say, notable queer couple Luz and Amity Blight-Noceda and helping them out in certain events... only to covertly play them via false-flag attacks and engineered heroics as a deliberate means to combat and justify the eradication of homophobia and Ku Klux Klan across their world(s). In short, they should be characters the audience can easily sympathize and even root for, even if said audience grinds their teeth and cringes away their eyes because of their callous, overkill actions.
Leftist villains or anti-villains could make effective manipulator types though. Imagine having some kind-seeming, real benevolent President unconditionally befriending, say, notable queer couple Luz and Amity Blight-Noceda and helping them out in certain events... only to covertly play them via false-flags and engineered heroics as a deliberate means to combat and justify the pacification of homophobia and Ku Klux Klan across their world(s). In short, they should be characters the audience can easily sympathize and even root for, even if said audience gets increasingly horrified.
Leftist villains or anti-villains could make effective manipulator types though. Imagine having some kind-seeming, real benevolent President unconditionally befriending, say, notable queer couple Luz and Amity Blight-Noceda and helping them out in certain events... only to covertly play them via false-flags and engineered heroics as a deliberate means to combat homophobia and Ku Klux Klan types across their world(s).
1:33 to 2:54 I'm actually with you on many points, even though I'm from new york, I have recently been quoting an set of lyrics: "Beware the American Dream, a double-edged sword: Where the rich collect and the poor afford to be blamed." From an classic song from the roaring twenties called "The Charleston Paradox"
It is worth mentioning that Cowboy Bebop started the year before Batman Beyond, and that it has a character which could have served as inspiration: the Teddy Bomber
Poison Ivy is incapable of reform? Not to sound like a smart-ass, but didn’t ALL of the Villain Reform episodes end in failure? Heck, I’m pretty sure that the only BTAS villain who ever reformed SUCCESSFULLY was Man-Bat…although I don’t even know if most people would consider that as an example.
@@seeleunit2000 Like who? I know Paul Dini did a jokey sort of thing like that for a magazine article back in the 90s (Thank you, Watchtower Database!).
@SerumLake Mad Stan is also popular for the same reasons Ted is. He does terrible things, but his rants and antics had a point. Stan is taken to comical levels, but they both were against technology and humanities growing dependence on it. They're both right to an extent, but whereas Ted was very clinical and thoughtful in all of his interviews and essays/manifestos, Stan is meant to be a very over the top joke instead of the very real terror Ted was able to bring, just to bring attention to his manifesto. I would highly recommend reading his writings, btw. Dude was prescient to a very insanely level. Like, able to see 40 years into the future with how society adapted to the Internet.
The problem I have with anarchists most often is that they want to tear down a system that I agree doesn't work and causes a lot of harm, but quite often they Just want to destroy it and don't really think much of what to do after that. And as someone who, however meagrely, ekes by purely by virtue of the support provided by those systems, I'm more than aware that destroying them will cost real human lives in the process.
I suggest checking out Andrewism on TH-cam, he's an anarchist who makes short educational videos topics like colonialism, environmentalism, and history. He's got videos discussing possible ways to create a better world; I recommend his videos on the Library Economy and on Solarpunk.
That isn't really what real anarchists believe though... We believe in getting rid of unjust hierarchies. We believe in tearing down systems literally designed to exploit and chain the many to benefit the few, but we DO know what we want to replace it with: Democracy. REAL democracy. Not voting someone who claims they'll vote for your interests... Which they rarely actually do. But voting on policy yourselves. There would still be politicians and political admin mind you, but they'd be more like advocates for the beliefs they want people to vote for rather than lords. And in the workplace too. Companies made of partners, not employees, that all vote on the policies of and benefit from the successes of their business. You'd need something similar to an executive branch completely accountable and controlled by the people to manage foreign affairs and emergencies, but that's why the qualifier is unjust hierarchies. If a hierarchy is necessary and just, like experts having more sway in their field, or firefighters having qualifications, that's perfectly fine. But if a hierarchy can't be justified outside the framework of being absolutely necessary with no effective alternatives, it isn't right. Here's the issue (an issue that this video itself perpetuates mind you): When your movement threatens the power of those at the top of a hierarchal society, they will stop at nothing to crush it in the court of public opinion. They will strawman and lie about their positions with little push back because those at the top of the various pillars of society are quite cozy with the way things are irregardless of how the sausage is made. Are there people that claim to be anarchists and are as you described? Yes. Because some people are stupid and even though the strawman was made to deter people from anarchist movements, there is a certain romanticism to just saying "f**k it" to society as a whole.... But that isn't anarchism. It just isn't. The AO symbol literally means Anarchism is Order. Because we believe order and peace can only be achieved if everyone is free and able to just live their lives without having to be exploited at every turn because some arbitrary immoral social construct says it's okay. It is a leftwing position. Because the point is to fix a fumdamentally broken society. Likewise AnCaps or as they often call themselves "Libertarians" are neither of these things. They just coopt these ideas to try to become new rulers the exact same way Marxist-Leninists coopted the aesthetics and mantras of Communism (of which anarchism is also a subset of) We are fighting for you. One day, we hope all the little chiseling we have been doing for centuries to get rid of humanity's monster will finally pay off, and be seen and understood for what it is. And humanity will finally be free.
Mad Stan is interesting partly because he is something of an anachronism being a Mad Bomber Anarchist of the sort seen in the 19th century. Aliso I'd say his attack on knowledge and being a loner with a desire to destroy society/the government without any vision of a better replacement makes him right wing as he assumes that he will be top dog or at least he will be strong/capable enough to still be able to live in the manner he is accustomed to in what is left of things should he achieve his goal.
I love Mad Stan. I think he kind of has a point in that there are definitely issues in society that can be frustrating and are just either ignored or accepted, but he has the most hilariously simple minded solution of blowing it all up. It would probably be very satisfying in the moment to deal with it that way, but doesn't stop for a second to consider the long term of it.
I have a few friends who are staunch anarcho-capitalists: anti-taxation/regulation/government, pro-business and free market (obvs), and believing in property rights above all. idk what deep thought I’m trying to articulate here, but it’s really made me think the ‘right to left’ spectrum is less of a horizontal line and rather more like a Venn diagram with less in the peripheral circles than you would initially think
Committing murder (or attempted murder) is never an excuse for making changes, no matter how benevolent those proposed changes may be. (Although, do keep in mind that an actual rebellion is a legitimate war and thus not murder save for those committed as war crimes.) Claiming it's for peace is very hypocritical.
I think there's a little bit of Mad Stan in everyone. Who hasn't thought at some point "F%&k it! The entire system is broken, burn it down!" or in his case "blow it up!"? *I'm not saying* that's the answer, but I am saying that he's somewhat relatable, *even though he's a comical villain who takes things too far.* He's not a deep character, just a guy who likely spent too much time on internet forums and got tired of the government screwing him over. Tldr: I *don't* condone his actions, but I do *understand* them.
Very interesting that Batman Beyond villains borrow heavily from Marvel villains, particularly Spider-Man rogues gallery. Mad Stan, though, he has a lot in common with Frank Simpson, a.k.a. Nuke, a one-time Daredevil villain. Their ideologies couldn’t be more different, with one being a rambling anarchist, and the other being an unhinged jingoistic tragedy, a cruel parody of the Captain America supersoldier. But, in terms of powers and abilities, they are both similar for their superhuman toughness and durability, increased strength, and an affinity for firebombs and firepower.
No wonder Spellbinder waited until Stan came around for another go with Terry to troll him and Barbara. Spellbinder knew even against someone as dangerous as Stan that Barbara would never compromise her principles.
Actually in the US libertarians believe in extremely little government or as little government as possible (which is very simplified description) and in a sense is a less radical idea of anarchism without the actual anarchy. My main point is libertarians are considered to be conservative or otherwise on the right political in the US (I’m not making a political statement just pointing out the way we look at political ideology)
The left V right isn’t about the size of government though, it is about the place of hierarchy in society. Libertarians want to do away with the hierarchy of government, but are perfectly fine with the hierarchy of corporations, while anarchists don’t want there to be external hierarchies at all…
@@jamesfirecat6652 your right I forgot about corporations though that being said libertarians operate under the ideal of less control over the people which is why I drew the comparison
Hear me out here. Every point in this video is totally right, but you gotta admit it was chillingly accurate when he started discussing information overload, essentially predicting modern online emotionally manipulative bait, brainrot, and sludge content
if te 9/11 didn´t happened, mad stan would be a recurring villan on a season 4 batman beyond video, since season 3 they were focusing more about terrorism.
And we may have never gotten a fillery, unfinished, soft version of The Zeta Project too. Then again, we may have lost Justice League Unlimited's CADMUS arc and "Patriot Act".
Honestly, I will never understand anarchist bombers conceptually, neither in reality nor in fiction. The most central goal is to uninstall the government and I don't see how just smashing everything yourself is particularly helping besides causing distractions. Of course, stuff will inevitably get smashed in a state without rules, but that's usually a sideeffect and not the goal. 5:00 *cough* The what??? Ok, this character is hilarious. The "Mad" in his name definitly undersells it.
While everyone’s discussing politics of differing countries and nations; am I only one pondering how Stan got hold of all those high powered explosives? I understand that he’s a master demolitions expert but what does he do to get said materials? Is he an arms dealer on the side? *Flails in Riddler Energy*
as a syndicalist, anarchism can definitely be left-wing. the idea that anarchism means "no government" is a misleading simplification. just look up socialist anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism. nice vid
@@SerumLake sure but you went further and suggested that anarchism actually isn't internally consistent with socialism or leftism (whatever term you prefer). even for a simplification, that's just incorrect, at least if we're going by the historicopolitical definitions. not trying to nitpick as i love your vids man - obviously, for leftist anarchists the idea that 'anarchy' meaning chaos is synonymous with our ideal political system is a particular bugbear. it's probably down to poor branding but what are ya gonna do. the real stan being a "union man" makes a lot of sense but also suggests that this parody wasn't too personal - obviously, union men do believe in the utility of organizational structure and group decision-making.
So the reason why I don't see anarchism as being particularly leftist (god, I hate that term...) is because traditionally those on the left have wanted to have large governments responsible for providing all of the essential services to the citizens - healthcare, utilities, roads, and so on. Those on the right, meanwhile, want small government that outsources all of the essentials to third parties, who then restrict access to those that can afford their services. So, from that perspective, anarchism isn't particularly left leaning. Maybe my definitions are coloured by my life experience, I'm totally open to that.
@@SerumLake right, and to me anarchist leftism is about making people themselves part of their own governance instead of abstracting it away from them. for example syndicalists see worker ownership as key to ideal social organization, as opposed to capitalist or "government" ownership. you might still call worker ownership a form of government, and for me that's fine. i think you're referring to basically social democracy, which is also better than unfettered capitalism but as we're seeing has limits when it comes to dealing with tyrants, corporate and government. (this is also the "socialism" of the left wing of the democratic party in the US, of bernie sanders and alexandria ocasio-cortez.) again i encourage you to check out socialist anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism as it seems like you are still hung up on this idea of anarchism = no government. in contrast i would say that you can think of anarchism as having government everywhere, because we would all be involved in our own government. i do appreciate your politics even if they're not quite as radical as mine, i'm a big tent leftist at the end of the day and understand that radicals and reformers have a role in social progress, i just think that the current balance is way out of whack in favor of reformers. i also appreciate you taking a critical look at these themes in pop culture, so thanks! viva la revolucion, sous les paves, la plage!
@@numberonedad And I appreciate your contribution. I'm always happy to hear alternate takes, so long as it doesn't devolve into insult flinging. You should see some of the comments on my Lock-Up video... yeeeesh!
Honestly, I really like this guy - he’s very comical, and makes me laugh! But I also like that, despite his pretty crazy beliefs, he loves his dog so much. Because ,,, y’know what, same !! It feels weirdly human for such a comical character, and I think it’s nice ! Maybe this is just me though, because I love dogs so much 💀
I was writing a super villain story for a while, that had started out with the main character being a loose canon vigilante. An anarchist that was experimented on by a shady corporation that wanted to corporatize super heroes. He got a healing factor out of it, and started waging a one man war on corporations. But, the more I wrote, the more I realized that he just wasn't a compelling character. You can only have a guy get shot to death and come back so many times and preach punk rock retorect so many times before it starts to lose its charm. So, instead I made him into a side character. He still appeared in news stories where the good guys saved the day, but the real story revolved around a man that was a survivor of a super villain attack that resulted in him getting super powers. Super strength and durability, but he had been a nerdy and cowardly person for most of his life up until that point. He loses his job, his house, his car can't hold his new larger form anymore, and can't find work in the cyber security industry anymore because when people look at him, they see this large metahuman brute that can't sit in normal chairs because the hyper-dense muscles and bones of his now over seven foot tall body made him over 400lbs. Where most stories would take the route of "the world cast me aside, so now I will take my revenge!" I thought it would be more compelling for him to keep his personality the same cowardly and intelligent problem solver, just in the body of a brute. He gets swept up in a henchmen group when he joins a temp company to make ends meet, he ends up working for super villains and showing off his intelligence making himself an asset to a community he would rather avoid. He meets people that genuinely admire him sticking to his refusal to kill in a world where it's the only way to prove yourself as an asset. The shift from a loud and proud anarchist blowing up skyscrapers and burning his name into a city to a mild mannered soft spoken henchmen was something the story really benefited from, and I wish I could find the time these days to finish it.
On the subject of that political interlude, I think your definitions might be off. You're defining left, right, and anarchist in terms of how they feel about a liberal democracy which has a pendulum swinging back and forth between left leaning and right leaning leadership. This doesn't cover broad swathes of different philosophies both left and right. The definitions I like using the most define each side in terms of hierarchies. The fewer hierarchies you want in society, the more left you are, and the more you want, the more right you are. Given these definitions, anarchism is pretty far left. I do love your videos, but I had to flex my political science degree somehow. Keep it up.
I guess the issue I have with that is that many left leaning ideologies want large government in control of all of the things that are important in life - utilities, healthcare, and so on - to ensure that everyone gets access to the services they need. Those on the right want small government, outsourcing all of life's necessities to private businesses, who then restrict access to only those that can afford it. In that sense anarchism sounds more like libertarianism to me. But, as you point out, you are more educated on the subject than I am, so I will defer to your expertise.
What's funny about your description of Mad Stan as a "left-leaning" villain is that the discussion surrounding him tends towards people accusing him of belonging to whichever side the current speaker isn't, though I suspect that it's more of both sides each wanting to paint the other as the bomb-tossing crazies. To me, he's always come across as someone who's become so extreme on . . . whichever side of the political spectrum he originated . . . that he's hit some middle ground while also flying completely off the ideological map.
Only one complaint about your summary of left and right: they arent synonyms for "progress" and "regress". Even the last century's most radical "right" parties (the ones in Italy and Germany) were considered Futurists and Third Position. That is "forward", but in a different direction.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](/img/tr.png)
I remember chatting with Paul Dini about a character he wanted to create - someone who was mad in both senses of the word: angry and crazy. Paul rewarded me for my enthusiasm by naming the character after me. Sadly, I never wrote any dialogue for my namesake.
- Stan B
Thank you, Stan!
Ps. I really enjoyed Beyond The Bat.
And thank you, Serum.
PS: How’d you get that name?
@@StanBerkowitz-y5h I wish I had an elaborate origin story, but it's just an anagram of my name.
The video isn’t about how amazing Mad Stan is?
*BLOW IT UP*
It's the only sane solution!
😂😂
I have to admit: knocking *yourself* out as to not reveal the information, is such a clever move.
Probably the most clever and simultaneously most idiotic move he's ever done.
Basically the family-friendly versio of off'ed yourself to avoid revealing information
@@ShatteredGlass916right, it’s like offing yourself to keep a secret but not being able to commit.
I mean, if you're a Batman villain, it's brilliant. The worst thing he's going to do is have you arrested.
@@Marsh388why would he commit? that’d be counterproductive when he still has work he wants to do.
While I feel that R'as al Ghul and Poison Ivy are pretty good "leftist" villains (one the embodiment of ecofascism and the other promoting ecology to destroy humanity rather than protect it), I'll always have a soft spot for Mad Stan.
"No more graft! No more payoffs! NO MORE JURY DUTY!!!"
Ra's always had an Eschatolological viewpoint of making a Heaven on Earth due to how corrupt the world is in God's apparent absence.
Poison Ivy maybe. Ras seems more Monarchist, with himself as the Monarch, of course
"NO MORE JURY DUTY" you say? Perhaps he has a point. {J/K, lol.}
I never saw Al-Ghoul as any sort of leftist at all. Someone is going to have to explain that to me.
@@Karlwasright his supposed motivation was protecting the environment, but it's a pretty thin cover for wanting power for power's sake
This just goes to show you. All you need to do to make your homicidal maniac character endearing is make them a puppy parent
Also have them hate jury duty. That's about as universal as you can get.
@@jordanloux3883Yeah he killed 80 people but it was to get out of jury duty so can you really blame the guy?
Aren't dogs social animals? So wouldn't an anarchist like Stan try to blow up puppies?
Didn't work for Buffalo Bill.😅
His VR dream cracked me up. So relatable and yet so over-the-top.
As someone who works in library and cares about education and accessible information, I'm appalled by Mad Stan's plan to blow up the archives. The information wants to be free, not burnt to a crisp! T_T
Hear, hear.
He makes me think of the terminally online who think the universe revoles around them and go ballistic at seeing anything they disagree with crossed with the Unabomber
The screaming and ranting makes it pretty apparent on the former, yeah.
If Mad Stan voted, he'd probably vote for Senator Armstrong from Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance.
Nah, Armstrong is a Libertarian, he wants to do away with government so that the strong will be free to prey upon the weak.
You're assuming he would or could vote. He'd sooner be one of his campaign speakers or activists. 😂
We were wrong. He's not crazy...
HE'S BATCRUD INSAAAAANNNNNNEEEEEE!!!!!!!
"Nano machines man"
'Lebowski'. That last name cannot be coincidence. The dude abides... by blowing things up.
I think that the generalization of anarchism as a left ideology comes mostly from the historical example of real world anarchists being of the left leaning versions of it (like anarcho-comunism or anracho-syndicalism), thus giving anarchism that left leaning tint despite the base ideology being anti-political
Anarchists are political contrarians as their "ideology" is meant to be reactionary and temporary
It is difficult to depict the failed ideologies as anything more than cartoonish caricatures even in more serious media. I think it's because most of the reference material that gets used is old propaganda.
@@teehasheestower I mean to be fair,most people just need to see the results
@@ZX-Gear clarify please
@@teehasheestower Holdomore
Imagine my shock and feeling of irony that my favorite villain from Legend of Korra (Zaheer) is voiced by the same one who voices Man Stan. What is ironic is that zaheer is calm and soothing in his talking while mad Stan is loud and energetic
Zaheer is pretty much Mad Stan if he was given an actual intellectual brain. Zaheer understands how the system works and more importantly, he knows how to break it with the minimalist effort.
@@evanbao93 I never thought about that. And that is scary. Imagine mad Stan with the brains of zaheer. You’re right about that.
Zaheer was done dirty. They should have brought him back for the last season and have him try to kill the fascist women like he did to their Queen.
If batman beyond ever got an arkham city style game, finding all of mad stan's hidden bombs would be that game's version of the riddler trophies
No animated character has made me laugh as much as Mad Stan. I think I have a problem.
If you're wrong I wouldn't want to be right!
The joker ain’t gonna be happy once he hears he was beat by Mad Stan
@SerumLake I theorize that mr stan is an ex vet, with a background in wrestling given his technique that regularly gives Terry trouble while being able to expertly infiltrate buildings and strategically place explosives. They could've done a story on how he went insane resulting from dissolution with his prior work for the government
Well, there's The Tick's Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight.
@@michaelandreipalon359 'BOOM, BABY, BOOM!' I saw that connection too.
It's a shame that we never got a good animated version of Anarky (Lonnie Machin). I feel like it's because most people don't understand anarchist political philosophy very well and still use the stereotype of the bomb-throwing maniac as a way to present anarchists. Anarky has a lot of nuance to him...if the writers allow for it. If I remember right, Alan Grant was slightly regretful of the fact that Anarky didn't become Batman's sidekick at some point. However, I feel that, at the basis of that character is a fundamental disagreement with Batman and what he represents. That could all be very interesting and fascinating to explore but it's sad that the character seems to have been kind of discarded.
I always hate what Arkham did to this character.
He's just quite difficult to adapt so well, just like Bane, Doomsday, and Cheetah.
Anarchy would be a great foil to Batman, Nightwing, Red Hood and Green Arrow among others.
NGL putting yourself to sleep with drugs is pretty clever.
Lmfao Dale does that in king of the hill to avoid an ass kicking from hank
When you need someone to voice an anarchist, you go to Henry Rollins. He brought us the delusional Mad Stan in Batman Beyond and the philosophical Zaheer in The Legend of Korra.
Sure, Mad Stan was never the main villain of a story, but as a large man of questionable sanity with access to explosives, he was still something of a threat. And sometimes, you just need a lunatic with alot of explosives.
Ah, Zaheer. That show has numerous flaws, but that guy is not one of them.
I wanted to point out that Mad Stan's name is likely a reference to Mad Max, since they both have polish surnames: Stan Lebowsky - Max Rockatansky
Mad Stan is the best DCAU villain.
I'd say Mad Stan is more akin to being sovereign citizen/conspiracy theorist on the extreme than anything else. Since most of his grievances are about the government existing and society requiring him to contribute to for living in it but unlike most sov cits and conspiracy nuts he's more than willing to violently do something about what he views as unjust authority lording over everyone. Mad Stan also has big 'taxation is theft' energy.
Mad Stan would totally be a Sov Cit if those had been thing in the general cultural zeitgeist at the time the show came out, you raise some very good points.
@@jamesfirecat6652 You know his ass would be guzzling conspiracy and pseudo law content.
I don't think Stan believes taxation is theft because that would involve thinking money is real
@@andyggjhjkl Why would he let that stop him? He can still believe money isn't real AND that taxation is theft, like sovereign citizens.
@@NoMoreSuperHero He would call into Info Wars frequently enough that the guys at Knowledge Fight would recognize his voice…
Next Batman Beyond essay should be about Inque’s daughter Deanna Clay.
It'll be Dr Cuvier and the Splicers, they came third in the recent poll.
@@SerumLakeSounds good. I think the concept of Splicing is interesting.
That's a good topic since it shows off what is happening in today's world with teenagers liking something that may seem unethical like vaping, tiktok trends etc and the parents worrying about it and it's effects on their kids. Look at the satanic panic of the 80s!
@@SerumLakeI see next poll after that then.
I actually found it really touching how much he cared about his dog, it just adds a little bit of humanity to a character I’d probably think of as nothing more than a joke character. Like he IS a joke character, but it gives me something to be interested in
Stan's final appearance taught viewers a good lesson. Just because someone is insane, does not mean they are stupid. It Is a shame that Stan did not make anymore appearances in the dcau (of course I can say the same thing 4 other characters in the dcau). He may have been a minor villain but he was the most entertaining villain of Terry's rogues gallery
Batman shining the flashlight left and right as you said "left leaning" and "right leaning" is an underrated moment. It's the little things like that make you a great editor.
Thank you, I'm glad someone notices my careful shot selection :)
Mad Stan reminds me of Amon from LoK. So obsessed with their ideology that they don't see or care who they hurt or the negative ramifications of their ideology. However in Lok Amon is taken seriously but in BB, they know that he's an extremist and not to be taken as anything more than a parody.
Humourously, Mad Stan shares the same VA as Zaheer from the same show.
*GASP* I can accept liberalism, but I draw the line at being british!
Mad Stan, somewhat underutilised in the series, but there were few joke villains amongst Terry's rogues' gallery so it's not a big surprise, being just a normal, if deluded, guy really makes it hard to stand up to gene technicians, cult, a meltdown-man or an ellusive illusionist.
House and Garden: An episode that both humanised and dehumanised Poison Ivy beyond what I had ever expected. Looking forward to your take on it.
I like Mad Stan he’s funny, I find it hard to believe that his voice actor Henry Rollins was mugged once that his friend died in a show called Unsolved Mysteries which I kinda feel bad for and that line Information overload was from Johnny Mnemonic.
Mad Stan is still one of my favorite villains to quote 20+ years later
_Information overload, maaaan_
I still ascribe to the Horseshoe Theory. The further Left or Right you go the less differences there are between you and the opposite faction. My that model though Anarchism isn't on the left or right side of the Horseshoe. It's the one who picked up the horseshoe and threw it at the Neighbors' Cat.
I like your way of thinking
Imo horseshoe theory is an admission that the forms ideologies take are limited by reality and left and right are outdated
Anarky (the character) has been framed as being mostly left-wing in his beliefs.
@@Regenmacher175 He at times comes off more as tankie (Stalinist) in his wording and methodology which shows hes as much a misguided dolt as many other villains.
Depends on the writer, no?
Thing I love about Mad Stan is that's he isn't really much of a threat in the grand scheme of things. He's just a pesky constant thorn in Batman's side. Yet he is still just dangerous enough to not fully underestimate. He's very much a modern update of Batman villains like Crazy Quilt and Calendar Man of the late 50s and 60s.
It always seems like no matter what character Henry Rollins plays, he's always going to be awesome.
I love the scene where he tries to blow the Library. Batman Beyond is like, "Yeah right like books are gonna kill you' and Mad Stan is like "Information overload man." That always makes laugh.
Well, that is what killed (essentially) Hugo Strange in "The Batman."
Ironically enough, Henry Rollins would voice another anarchist character. In the sequel to Avatar: The Last Airbender, the Legend of Korra, he voiced Book 3 Antagonist, Zaheer, who, like Mad Stan, wants to topple governments.
Also somehow a contrast since Zaheer is more intellectual type and even try to debate with Korra that had interesting point on how the world is essentially Avatar doing what they please and maintain a status quo (though consider that everyone is itching for a fight after they die…and caused a century long conflict that saw a genocide…also maybe angry spirits that seem to pop out and would have caused catastrophe had it not been for Aang. Though you can argue that prequel novels was showing how “it seem like a good idea” can bite back for later avatar.)
Zaheer wasn't even an anarchist, he was a painfully hamfisted caricature of an anarchist.
Well, maybe comparing to Mad Stan, he tends to be seen as “reasonable”…maybe pseudo philosophical lecture instead of rants might have been subtle as a caricature.
Though he’s not Ursula LeGuin.
And basically succeeds. The events of Season 4 wouldn't have happened if it weren't for his surprising success rate.
Meantime, the Earth Queen deserved it.
@@michaelandreipalon359 I agree with you on that. The Airbenders in her city didn’t have to serve her, what she did is basically human trafficking. And I absolutely hate people who commit that atrocity, and it absolutely doesn’t matter, if you’re a ruler, a thug wanting to make a quick buck, or God only knows what else, they’re not your property!
Mad Stan is one of the funniest villains I’ve seen. His over-the-top reactions and rants make my sides hurt every time I see him. I even dressed up as Mad Stan once for Halloween.
Him being a costume makes sense. His design is so basic, but not too complex and sometimes insensitive.
There are two things I remember about Mad Stan: his bombastic personality, and the fact he was always a side character.
Funniest moment in the Zeta Episode was when Joker flew on Terry's car and he said you better have a squeegy😅😅😅
I feel like Anarchy and Political Anarchism are different, but like you said, quick description in a batman TH-cam video.
Mad Stan felt like a mix of Alex Jones and the Unabomber.
Timothy McVeigh
I hear a fantheory that says that Mad Stan is the son of Lock-Up.
As for why he returned in the comics... The creator got some criticism from a friend about "killing" Mad Stan, so he brought him back.
I honestly disagree about Anarchism not being a left-wing ideology.
Anarchism ascribes to the notion that the state serve only to oppress in order to defend the ruling classes interests, and that it should be dismantled. Differently from communists, anarchists don't believe in a transitional period to deal with the remnants of capitalism and want to just jump the gun straight to a stateless society.
Of course, anarchism is very diverse and there's a myriad of ideas. From the more collectivist Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-syndicalists to more individualist lines like Anarcho-Egoism.
Right winged 'anarchists' like Anarcho-capitalists and the like are not anarchists, they're neo-feudalists or corporatocrats
Either way, they are as incongruous and lackadaisically numerous as their views.
Mad Stan got a mention in Babel I thibk it was. Bruce and Terry were fixing the suit and when asked how he managed to damage it, Terry notes he dodged Mad Stan's grenade, but he had two
Yep, he did get a mention there. Really wonder how the rest of the incident went.
Thank you for the time and effort you put into making this video. It was really good!
Funny enough since comics are involved; major comic writer Alan Moore, the creator of Watchmen, identifies an anarchist and his famous V for Vendetta is actually pro-Anarchism, as opposed to the film adaptation which has a more hopeful, uplifting ending; the comic ends with Britain falling into chaos and that is hinted as a good thing.
Still better than living under the abomination that is Norsefire.
i saw it more as that with norsefire gone there's a CHANCE at a better future, and whether people will actually use it to build a better Britain or descend back into fascism is up in the air. but it's better than no chance at all that people had under norsefire.
Still a great comic and maybe even good enough film adaptation in their own rights, regardless of what one's views of them are.
@@michaelandreipalon359 Alan Moore despises movie and television adaptations of his work, be it Watchmen, V for Vendetta or The Killing Joke.
@WolfJarl, funnily enough, Alan Moore said he doesn't like The Killing Joke comic.
here in the US for decades right wing types have coopted anarchist language such that libertarian types are usually crypto far right; thus they argue for anarcho-capitalism as you describe; left wing anarchist argue not just for dissolving or minimizing the state but for replacing it with a civil society because the state has an incentive to side with the rich; to left anarchists their system sees itself as bringing democracy to all things.
I always saw mad stan as a populist violent reactionary; his motivations do not matter cause his means do not match his motivations and his means create far more harm then good. Mad Stan would be travis in taxi driver
A good rule of thumb for separating left wing Anarchists from right wing Libertarians is “which podcast/radio would this person listen to /agree with”, Behind the Bastards with Robert Evans, or Info Wars with Alex Jones… and I think a strong argument can be made for the latter…
Democracy in all things sounds infinitely more tyrannical than any state could possibly be. That can't be an accurate description.
@@ttthttpdHow so? How is allowing the people to decide their own laws tyrannical to anyone who doesn't just want an excuse to control or exploit other people?
Funny how the right loves to defer to societal debate and the "marketplace of ideas" when trying to justify their attempts to sell their slop, but when that marketplace threatens to become the basis for society, you all get very very scared.
It's almost like you are self aware enough to know all the awful things you want wouldn't fly in a free and fair society.
@@ttthttpd How so? How is allowing the people to decide their own laws tyrannical to anyone who doesn't just want an excuse to control or exploit other people?
Funny how the right loves to defer to societal debate and the "marketplace of ideas" when trying to justify their attempts to sell their slop, but when that marketplace shows potential to become the basis for society, you all get very very scared.
It's almost like you are self aware enough to know all the terrible things you want wouldn't fly in a free and fair society.
@@ttthttpdHow so? How is allowing the people to decide their own laws tyrannical to anyone who doesn't just want an excuse to control or exploit other people?
Funny how the right loves to defer to societal debate and the "marketplace of ideas" when trying to justify their attempts to sell their slop, but when that marketplace shows potential for becoming the basis for society, y'all get very very scared.
It's almost like there is self awareness of how awful RW beliefs and policies actually are, and that they would never fly in a truly free and fair society...
I’d say Poison Ivy counts as a “left-leaning” villain, she’s literally depicted as an eco-terrorist
Luminus was such an underestimated villain that it was a shame he's never been used in other medium: a guy who risked his career to help Lois Lane expose corruption in Lex Luthor and lost everything with Lois barely/lacking any gratitude turning him into a vengeful stalker. His skills in light engineering were incredible as not only could he create dense light holograms to physically interact/attack bit could manipulate sunlight in order to depower Superman.
I wouldn't call R'as Al Ghul "Leftist", cause Environmentalism is actually trait that a certain political party in the 1930s and 40s heavily pushed, and, at least in the TAS universe, Ras shares several other values with members of that party and their associates, namely Eugenics and Population control.
Ivy totally was, though, she basically went as far with "Eat the Rich" as she could in a PG show.
@@entothechesnautknight1762 you can argue eugenics were also something of a left-leaning policy at least when it comes to the American point of view. In America eugenics were primarily used in the context of evolution, like those people were inferior so them having children was just kinda a mistake
@@entothechesnautknight1762 population control is sort of non-political. Same with eugenics. Fascists use egenics for inferior peoples but the left in the US used eugenics with the excuse of evolution. And population control was a mandatory law in communist China
Environmentalism can belong to anybody of any political affiliation without it being inherently contradictory
He might not have had a lot of apperances, but I loved every single one he did get.
While I have no issues with villains having values on either side. I do think it is important to have a fair number of villains on both sides of the political spectrum. Mainly to show the finer nuances of society. That said, I think we all can agree, that it all comes down to the quality of the writing.
Did Anarchy make an appearance in the 1990's animated Batman series?
He only appeared in one issue of Batman Adventures, but was never seen on screen
@SerumLake man he would have made a promising Villain if he did.
@@goni2493except until Arkham, he was mainly an anti-hero that was generally a neutral to positive interpretation of an anarchist before Arkham sort of turned him into a generic “I have great points but do villainous actions” type of antagonist.
"House and Garden" kind of reminds me of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", since Ivy was creating humanoid replicates of Dr. Carlysle that turned into alien-like abominations. I feel like that one episode in TNBA with Bruce Wayne marrying Susan was also a reference to movies like "They Live" & other films with plots involving of sci-fi horror and human-disguised imposters.
Ah, the early 00's. The time when guys like Mad Stan seemed to belong to a far fetched future.
Have him use the phrase redpill and he is a modern man.
Gotta miss that era though. Fiction needs to bring back memetic loser terrorists akin to G.I. Joe and that Godzilla cartoon... but keep the hyper-competent rogue states and organizations popularized by Justice League Unlimited and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
I like the way you think, because I was thinking the same exact thing LOL.
But mad stan is based on the unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. Alot of redpill dudes idolize these guys.
7:16 Honestly in BTAS, Professor Milo got the same treatment, aside from a small cameo on the cover of an issue of Gotham Adventures. That's pretty disappointing.
My favorite scene with Mad Stan was where he declared that there was no more Jury Duty. Poor son of a gun will be so angry when he finds out he didn’t destroy it.
Mad Stan is a great comical villain. While he is potentially very dangerous unstable man with explosives, the fact we never see any of his plots succeed makes it safe for us to laugh at someone who seemingly just looking for a excuse to blow stuff up. Mad Stan is similar to The Midnight Bomber that Bomb at Midnight from The Tick... only angrier.
I've been waiting on House and Garden! I canniot wait for your review.
I wouldn't mind a Peace Maker style show where Stan goes after corrupt government agencies like the one chasing Zetta.😂
With the irony that Stan only makes problem worse by creating massive vacuums that get filled up with even more unscrupulous power players.
leftist villains are probably less common because often they're just hypocrites, or inept. sorta not making them left wing at all.
stalin would be left wing, but he didn't really believe in equality despite communism being for it did he?
an inept antagonist isn't really as exciting for a villain to fight as one who's more active
but i think it can be considered that lots of super villains take advantage inept systems to get out of jail, but that doesn't really make them left wing either
Leftist villains or anti-villains could make effective manipulator types though. Imagine having some kind-seeming, real benevolent President unconditionally befriending, say, notable queer couple Luz and Amity Blight-Noceda and helping them out in certain events... only to covertly play them via false-flag attacks and engineered heroics as a deliberate means to combat and justify the eradication of homophobia and Ku Klux Klan across their world(s).
In short, they should be characters the audience can easily sympathize and even root for, even if said audience grinds their teeth and cringes away their eyes because of their callous, overkill actions.
Leftist villains or anti-villains could make effective manipulator types though. Imagine having some kind-seeming, real benevolent President unconditionally befriending, say, notable queer couple Luz and Amity Blight-Noceda and helping them out in certain events... only to covertly play them via false-flags and engineered heroics as a deliberate means to combat and justify the pacification of homophobia and Ku Klux Klan across their world(s).
In short, they should be characters the audience can easily sympathize and even root for, even if said audience gets increasingly horrified.
Leftist villains or anti-villains could make effective manipulator types though. Imagine having some kind-seeming, real benevolent President unconditionally befriending, say, notable queer couple Luz and Amity Blight-Noceda and helping them out in certain events... only to covertly play them via false-flags and engineered heroics as a deliberate means to combat homophobia and Ku Klux Klan types across their world(s).
1:33 to 2:54 I'm actually with you on many points, even though I'm from new york, I have recently been quoting an set of lyrics: "Beware the American Dream, a double-edged sword: Where the rich collect and the poor afford to be blamed." From an classic song from the roaring twenties called "The Charleston Paradox"
It is worth mentioning that Cowboy Bebop started the year before Batman Beyond, and that it has a character which could have served as inspiration: the Teddy Bomber
Quite a timeless anime.
Poison Ivy is incapable of reform? Not to sound like a smart-ass, but didn’t ALL of the Villain Reform episodes end in failure?
Heck, I’m pretty sure that the only BTAS villain who ever reformed SUCCESSFULLY was Man-Bat…although I don’t even know if most people would consider that as an example.
Apparently it was mentioned in the far future that some of them actually did manage to improve.
@@seeleunit2000 Like who? I know Paul Dini did a jokey sort of thing like that for a magazine article back in the 90s (Thank you, Watchtower Database!).
@@seeleunit2000 yeah i remember something about riddler and mad hatter reforming. I also heard that croc is still alive.
There's also the Ventriloquist, but then again, the Gotham Adventures tie-in comics may have reversed his curing from Scarface.
Harley Quinn actually survived and seemed to reform herself as she's actually the grandma of the Dee-Dee twins
Madstan; the only hero of his own story that nobody reads.😂
Mad Stan is also based on Ted Kazinsky.
I read that as Ted Kennedy (!!!!!)
@SerumLake Mad Stan is also popular for the same reasons Ted is.
He does terrible things, but his rants and antics had a point. Stan is taken to comical levels, but they both were against technology and humanities growing dependence on it.
They're both right to an extent, but whereas Ted was very clinical and thoughtful in all of his interviews and essays/manifestos, Stan is meant to be a very over the top joke instead of the very real terror Ted was able to bring, just to bring attention to his manifesto.
I would highly recommend reading his writings, btw. Dude was prescient to a very insanely level. Like, able to see 40 years into the future with how society adapted to the Internet.
And Timothy McVeigh.
5:01 I trough it was because there was way to much news, so people couldn't focust on any problem and where overwhelmed
The problem I have with anarchists most often is that they want to tear down a system that I agree doesn't work and causes a lot of harm, but quite often they Just want to destroy it and don't really think much of what to do after that. And as someone who, however meagrely, ekes by purely by virtue of the support provided by those systems, I'm more than aware that destroying them will cost real human lives in the process.
I suggest checking out Andrewism on TH-cam, he's an anarchist who makes short educational videos topics like colonialism, environmentalism, and history. He's got videos discussing possible ways to create a better world; I recommend his videos on the Library Economy and on Solarpunk.
That isn't really what real anarchists believe though... We believe in getting rid of unjust hierarchies. We believe in tearing down systems literally designed to exploit and chain the many to benefit the few, but we DO know what we want to replace it with: Democracy. REAL democracy.
Not voting someone who claims they'll vote for your interests... Which they rarely actually do. But voting on policy yourselves. There would still be politicians and political admin mind you, but they'd be more like advocates for the beliefs they want people to vote for rather than lords. And in the workplace too. Companies made of partners, not employees, that all vote on the policies of and benefit from the successes of their business.
You'd need something similar to an executive branch completely accountable and controlled by the people to manage foreign affairs and emergencies, but that's why the qualifier is unjust hierarchies. If a hierarchy is necessary and just, like experts having more sway in their field, or firefighters having qualifications, that's perfectly fine. But if a hierarchy can't be justified outside the framework of being absolutely necessary with no effective alternatives, it isn't right.
Here's the issue (an issue that this video itself perpetuates mind you): When your movement threatens the power of those at the top of a hierarchal society, they will stop at nothing to crush it in the court of public opinion. They will strawman and lie about their positions with little push back because those at the top of the various pillars of society are quite cozy with the way things are irregardless of how the sausage is made.
Are there people that claim to be anarchists and are as you described? Yes. Because some people are stupid and even though the strawman was made to deter people from anarchist movements, there is a certain romanticism to just saying "f**k it" to society as a whole.... But that isn't anarchism. It just isn't.
The AO symbol literally means Anarchism is Order. Because we believe order and peace can only be achieved if everyone is free and able to just live their lives without having to be exploited at every turn because some arbitrary immoral social construct says it's okay. It is a leftwing position. Because the point is to fix a fumdamentally broken society. Likewise AnCaps or as they often call themselves "Libertarians" are neither of these things. They just coopt these ideas to try to become new rulers the exact same way Marxist-Leninists coopted the aesthetics and mantras of Communism (of which anarchism is also a subset of)
We are fighting for you. One day, we hope all the little chiseling we have been doing for centuries to get rid of humanity's monster will finally pay off, and be seen and understood for what it is. And humanity will finally be free.
Mad Stan is interesting partly because he is something of an anachronism being a Mad Bomber Anarchist of the sort seen in the 19th century.
Aliso I'd say his attack on knowledge and being a loner with a desire to destroy society/the government without any vision of a better replacement makes him right wing as he assumes that he will be top dog or at least he will be strong/capable enough to still be able to live in the manner he is accustomed to in what is left of things should he achieve his goal.
I love Mad Stan. I think he kind of has a point in that there are definitely issues in society that can be frustrating and are just either ignored or accepted, but he has the most hilariously simple minded solution of blowing it all up. It would probably be very satisfying in the moment to deal with it that way, but doesn't stop for a second to consider the long term of it.
I have a few friends who are staunch anarcho-capitalists: anti-taxation/regulation/government, pro-business and free market (obvs), and believing in property rights above all. idk what deep thought I’m trying to articulate here, but it’s really made me think the ‘right to left’ spectrum is less of a horizontal line and rather more like a Venn diagram with less in the peripheral circles than you would initially think
4:18 The depreciation of the pension remained me of Paxton Powers and his role in Armory's origin.
4:49 Yes, yes, Bruce. We’ve all been to thanksgiving. We all know what that’s like [American viewers like me]
Mad Stan does feel like he has Paranoid Schizophrenia
'Stan thinks the modern world is too full of distractions'
Well wait a minute let the man talk 😂
Committing murder (or attempted murder) is never an excuse for making changes, no matter how benevolent those proposed changes may be. (Although, do keep in mind that an actual rebellion is a legitimate war and thus not murder save for those committed as war crimes.) Claiming it's for peace is very hypocritical.
He sure is a fun character and your videos have given me a fond love for crazy lad xD
I think there's a little bit of Mad Stan in everyone. Who hasn't thought at some point "F%&k it! The entire system is broken, burn it down!" or in his case "blow it up!"? *I'm not saying* that's the answer, but I am saying that he's somewhat relatable, *even though he's a comical villain who takes things too far.* He's not a deep character, just a guy who likely spent too much time on internet forums and got tired of the government screwing him over.
Tldr: I *don't* condone his actions, but I do *understand* them.
mad stan is a personal fave of mine and i love his dorky apperance so much i based a character in my own comic series about it
Very interesting that Batman Beyond villains borrow heavily from Marvel villains, particularly Spider-Man rogues gallery. Mad Stan, though, he has a lot in common with Frank Simpson, a.k.a. Nuke, a one-time Daredevil villain.
Their ideologies couldn’t be more different, with one being a rambling anarchist, and the other being an unhinged jingoistic tragedy, a cruel parody of the Captain America supersoldier. But, in terms of powers and abilities, they are both similar for their superhuman toughness and durability, increased strength, and an affinity for firebombs and firepower.
No wonder Spellbinder waited until Stan came around for another go with Terry to troll him and Barbara. Spellbinder knew even against someone as dangerous as Stan that Barbara would never compromise her principles.
Finally a video for the dcau goat
When i saw that poll i thought mad stan was a fake.
Actually in the US libertarians believe in extremely little government or as little government as possible (which is very simplified description) and in a sense is a less radical idea of anarchism without the actual anarchy. My main point is libertarians are considered to be conservative or otherwise on the right political in the US (I’m not making a political statement just pointing out the way we look at political ideology)
The left V right isn’t about the size of government though, it is about the place of hierarchy in society. Libertarians want to do away with the hierarchy of government, but are perfectly fine with the hierarchy of corporations, while anarchists don’t want there to be external hierarchies at all…
@@jamesfirecat6652 your right I forgot about corporations though that being said libertarians operate under the ideal of less control over the people which is why I drew the comparison
They wanted a one-off villain, but then you hire Henry Rollins to voice him. No surprise he ended up breaking out.
i think there is room to expand on his character including how he met boom boom and how he became so delusional.
Hear me out here. Every point in this video is totally right, but you gotta admit it was chillingly accurate when he started discussing information overload, essentially predicting modern online emotionally manipulative bait, brainrot, and sludge content
if te 9/11 didn´t happened, mad stan would be a recurring villan on a season 4 batman beyond video, since season 3 they were focusing more about terrorism.
And we may have never gotten a fillery, unfinished, soft version of The Zeta Project too.
Then again, we may have lost Justice League Unlimited's CADMUS arc and "Patriot Act".
Mad Stan is Alex Jones on steroids.
What is funny is cause Alex was on his High School Wrestling Team
And willingness to do the job himself instead of getting others to do it for him.
@@Alverant Mad Stan would succeed in an Insurrection. Just by himself
So . . . he's just Alex Jones?
Honestly, I will never understand anarchist bombers conceptually, neither in reality nor in fiction. The most central goal is to uninstall the government and I don't see how just smashing everything yourself is particularly helping besides causing distractions. Of course, stuff will inevitably get smashed in a state without rules, but that's usually a sideeffect and not the goal.
5:00 *cough* The what??? Ok, this character is hilarious. The "Mad" in his name definitly undersells it.
A neat fact is that he looks like Henry Rollins, his voice actor
While everyone’s discussing politics of differing countries and nations; am I only one pondering how Stan got hold of all those high powered explosives?
I understand that he’s a master demolitions expert but what does he do to get said materials? Is he an arms dealer on the side? *Flails in Riddler Energy*
He buys them from Russian arms dealers, at least according to that Batman Beyond comic.
@@SerumLake Makes sense, Stan does seem the type to get his gear from offshore markets
I think Mad Stan has FBI Backing
@@SerumLake That in of itself based on recent events definitely paints Mad Stan as right wing lmao
as a syndicalist, anarchism can definitely be left-wing. the idea that anarchism means "no government" is a misleading simplification. just look up socialist anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism.
nice vid
It may be a simplification, which I freely said, but it is entirely accurate to Mad Stan's brand of anarchism.
@@SerumLake sure but you went further and suggested that anarchism actually isn't internally consistent with socialism or leftism (whatever term you prefer). even for a simplification, that's just incorrect, at least if we're going by the historicopolitical definitions.
not trying to nitpick as i love your vids man - obviously, for leftist anarchists the idea that 'anarchy' meaning chaos is synonymous with our ideal political system is a particular bugbear. it's probably down to poor branding but what are ya gonna do. the real stan being a "union man" makes a lot of sense but also suggests that this parody wasn't too personal - obviously, union men do believe in the utility of organizational structure and group decision-making.
So the reason why I don't see anarchism as being particularly leftist (god, I hate that term...) is because traditionally those on the left have wanted to have large governments responsible for providing all of the essential services to the citizens - healthcare, utilities, roads, and so on. Those on the right, meanwhile, want small government that outsources all of the essentials to third parties, who then restrict access to those that can afford their services.
So, from that perspective, anarchism isn't particularly left leaning. Maybe my definitions are coloured by my life experience, I'm totally open to that.
@@SerumLake right, and to me anarchist leftism is about making people themselves part of their own governance instead of abstracting it away from them. for example syndicalists see worker ownership as key to ideal social organization, as opposed to capitalist or "government" ownership. you might still call worker ownership a form of government, and for me that's fine.
i think you're referring to basically social democracy, which is also better than unfettered capitalism but as we're seeing has limits when it comes to dealing with tyrants, corporate and government. (this is also the "socialism" of the left wing of the democratic party in the US, of bernie sanders and alexandria ocasio-cortez.)
again i encourage you to check out socialist anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism as it seems like you are still hung up on this idea of anarchism = no government. in contrast i would say that you can think of anarchism as having government everywhere, because we would all be involved in our own government.
i do appreciate your politics even if they're not quite as radical as mine, i'm a big tent leftist at the end of the day and understand that radicals and reformers have a role in social progress, i just think that the current balance is way out of whack in favor of reformers. i also appreciate you taking a critical look at these themes in pop culture, so thanks!
viva la revolucion, sous les paves, la plage!
@@numberonedad And I appreciate your contribution. I'm always happy to hear alternate takes, so long as it doesn't devolve into insult flinging. You should see some of the comments on my Lock-Up video... yeeeesh!
Honestly, I really like this guy - he’s very comical, and makes me laugh! But I also like that, despite his pretty crazy beliefs, he loves his dog so much. Because ,,, y’know what, same !! It feels weirdly human for such a comical character, and I think it’s nice ! Maybe this is just me though, because I love dogs so much 💀
I was writing a super villain story for a while, that had started out with the main character being a loose canon vigilante. An anarchist that was experimented on by a shady corporation that wanted to corporatize super heroes. He got a healing factor out of it, and started waging a one man war on corporations.
But, the more I wrote, the more I realized that he just wasn't a compelling character. You can only have a guy get shot to death and come back so many times and preach punk rock retorect so many times before it starts to lose its charm.
So, instead I made him into a side character. He still appeared in news stories where the good guys saved the day, but the real story revolved around a man that was a survivor of a super villain attack that resulted in him getting super powers. Super strength and durability, but he had been a nerdy and cowardly person for most of his life up until that point. He loses his job, his house, his car can't hold his new larger form anymore, and can't find work in the cyber security industry anymore because when people look at him, they see this large metahuman brute that can't sit in normal chairs because the hyper-dense muscles and bones of his now over seven foot tall body made him over 400lbs.
Where most stories would take the route of "the world cast me aside, so now I will take my revenge!" I thought it would be more compelling for him to keep his personality the same cowardly and intelligent problem solver, just in the body of a brute. He gets swept up in a henchmen group when he joins a temp company to make ends meet, he ends up working for super villains and showing off his intelligence making himself an asset to a community he would rather avoid. He meets people that genuinely admire him sticking to his refusal to kill in a world where it's the only way to prove yourself as an asset.
The shift from a loud and proud anarchist blowing up skyscrapers and burning his name into a city to a mild mannered soft spoken henchmen was something the story really benefited from, and I wish I could find the time these days to finish it.
I'm so glad Mad Stan was voiced by Henry Rollins. There really was no other choice for the role.
On the subject of that political interlude, I think your definitions might be off. You're defining left, right, and anarchist in terms of how they feel about a liberal democracy which has a pendulum swinging back and forth between left leaning and right leaning leadership. This doesn't cover broad swathes of different philosophies both left and right.
The definitions I like using the most define each side in terms of hierarchies. The fewer hierarchies you want in society, the more left you are, and the more you want, the more right you are. Given these definitions, anarchism is pretty far left.
I do love your videos, but I had to flex my political science degree somehow. Keep it up.
I guess the issue I have with that is that many left leaning ideologies want large government in control of all of the things that are important in life - utilities, healthcare, and so on - to ensure that everyone gets access to the services they need. Those on the right want small government, outsourcing all of life's necessities to private businesses, who then restrict access to only those that can afford it.
In that sense anarchism sounds more like libertarianism to me. But, as you point out, you are more educated on the subject than I am, so I will defer to your expertise.
Honestly, I wish he should have gotten more appearances. I always had a fan theory that he was related to Lockup. They kinda look and sound alike.
I can see that.
Hi Serum, did you see that Dynamic Music Partners just announced the "Batman Beyond Soundtrack Vol 2" to come out next week?
Yes I did, and I’m really looking forward to getting it!
What's funny about your description of Mad Stan as a "left-leaning" villain is that the discussion surrounding him tends towards people accusing him of belonging to whichever side the current speaker isn't, though I suspect that it's more of both sides each wanting to paint the other as the bomb-tossing crazies. To me, he's always come across as someone who's become so extreme on . . . whichever side of the political spectrum he originated . . . that he's hit some middle ground while also flying completely off the ideological map.
Only one complaint about your summary of left and right: they arent synonyms for "progress" and "regress". Even the last century's most radical "right" parties (the ones in Italy and Germany) were considered Futurists and Third Position. That is "forward", but in a different direction.
I really wish time travel shenanigans had bought Mad Stan to Lex Corp. or Cadmus. I’d have gotten popcorn out for that one, people.
Lex Corp definitely. Not Cadmus though. Waller would just stare Stan down until he gets scared and leaves
@@jordanloux3883 Waller or Stan, someone's ego would crumple up like wet tissue paper. Let them fight.
I can almost hear Henry Rollins yelling at Clancy Brown...