This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Haven: At the risk of Tempting Fate: no one ever change that description of Doctor Doom.
AlsoSprachOdin: I'd like confirmation whether this trope emphasizes that the transformation is a product of accident, as opposed to hard work (Victor Von Doom) or latent superpowers (Lucy the Homicidal Diclonius), or if From Nobody To Nightmare is simply about underdogs becoming powerful bad guys.
Whitewings: Removed the Willy Pete example from the Comics folder. So far, nothing's been revealed about his background or origins.
Anonymous lurker: I removed the following entry for reasons discussed below:
While I have no problem with discussing very real human rights abuses in countries like USSR, People's Republic of China, North Korea and Cambodia under Khmer Rouge, it can be quite a leap to accuse Karl Marx and his philosophy for them. It is also worth remembering that the authoritarian regimes rose to power in those countries during politically and socially turbulent times and it would have been entirely possible that something like that could have happened without Marx and his theories. Just because the official state ideologies of those governments may have had some resemblance to the philosophy of Marx, it does not mean that he should get the blame for their actions. After all, just because some of the eugenic theories of the Third Reich had similarity to some individual details in Darwin's theories, it doesn't mean that Darwin was in any way responsible for them (some creationists have actually used these kinds of accusations in their attempts to discredit evolution theory).
And when it comes to claims about the casualties caused by governments acting in the name of communism, it seems to be common among some people to deliberately use differing standards when evaluating these governments and comparing them to other governments. One of the most common examples seems to be using relatively inclusive criteria when discussing the casualties caused by Stalin's regime while concentrating solely on the Holocaust when discussing the deaths caused by the Third Reich. For example, the estimation about 100 million casualties in the Black Book of Communism also includes the people, who died due to the famines caused by policies of Mao (accounting for dozens of millions of casualties in the 100 million figure). So, if somebody insists on using the estimates from the Black Book of Communism when evaluating and discussing the ideology and policies of those regimes, it can be said that he/she should apply the very same standards to other countries and governments (such as including the casualties from famines caused by colonialist policies of the European countries) if he/she wants to act in intellectually honest manner.
Also, in the case it needs to be said: I have no illusions about those regimes and I think that their crimes need to be brought to light. However, my motives for that are grounded in the larger dedication for human rights and I have certain contempt for people, who try to use those actions as excuse to act as apologists for the crimes of the Western countries and their allies. I understood the principle of opposing human rights violations regardless of the perpetrator when I was child. How should I react to adults failing to grasp such an elementary concept? *
