Batman being fascist really depends on whos writing him. In some comics he is a control freak fascist. In some he is barely keeping it together and is just as crazy as those in Arkham asylum. In others he is the shield against the madness of Arkham. In others he is fighting again authoritarian Superman. And in others still he is painting Robin and himself yellow and beating the shit out of Green lantern for some fucking reason.
I don't know what my point is beyond Batman can very a lot.
Any superhero can go full fascist if we think about it.
That's literally the theme of the injustice saga!
Superman, the sweetest and most kind of heroes, created a world government ruled only by those who he deemed worthy and started killing anyone "bad".
Any superhero, if mentally challenged enough (for context Superman just had his pregnant wife killed and his city destroyed), can do pretty much that. (That's also where Batman's contingency plans come in)
I believe Nazis should be black-bagged instead of punched; punching them will humiliate the individual, but may also unite the group or serve as propagnda for accelerating their agenda.
There's some 48 Laws of Power (it's okay, you can cringe.) such-and-such about only attacking an enemy if you can utterly crush them, being careful to avoid leaving them wounded or humiliated , and retaining your initiative by maintaining the secrecy of your position. Bagging does all of this, and improves your odds of retaining your right to bear arms in the eyes of the law.
At this rate owning the libs will become the greatest cause of death amongst conservatives. They finally got the message and are trying to do us a favour.
I see this answer given a lot on reddit when this paradox is brought up so I'll post it here too. There is no paradox of tolerance because tolerance is not a rule but a social contract. When someone is intolerant they have violated said social contract and thus are no longer covered by it and are not granted tolerance. We tolerate those who tolerate others.
It probably would not because they don't believe in the argument anyway most of the time. They don't argue in good faith. They use that argument because it's something we would disagree with, but it's something they want to do.
it's the same bullshit under a different flag. the shit that happened in the eastern bloc was just as oppressive and authoritarian, the simple fact that it's politically considered "left" and not "right" doesn't make it any better.
and the worst part about this world view is that it tends to divide the world into two groups of authies that are the same group that larp against each other, and a bunch of indecisive schmucks in the middle who are weak for not "fully embracing" their "side" and joining one of the two groups. while what's really happening is that those schmucks are just capable of empathy unlike the tankies or nazis who insist they don't totally do the same shit as each other.
No the Nazis did not do central economic planning and the USSR did not believe the strong should rule the weak nor did they believe in creating a "master race" by exterminating the perceived other and before you say much GuLaGs a Gulag is a prison in which you serve time by working, similar to private prisons in the US however it wasn't done on the basis of exchange value but labour time.