Light is good. Dark is bad.

Yes criminals fear him, that's the point, yet people trust him, and hope he's out there, hence the underlying message is not the same, he subverts it.
Like Zorro, Batman and other dark knights, before him, by owning the dark theme, they turn it on the villains, and make it a representation of hope.

Also not mentioned Storm, Black Widow, Blade (movie), Blackbolt, Nighthawk, wear all black.
At DC Black Canary, Wild Cat, Black Lightning, Blackhawks, Raven...etc.
Movie X-Men and SHIELD agents wear mostly all black too, these listed and more are all heroes representing good!
Captain Harlock,
The Crow Movie.
Dark Angel TV.

Always?
You need to look around, and check again!

edit:

 

I'd feel safer standing behind this guy thank most heavenly light sided characters.

 

The purest version of the Yin can be found in the Yang, and the purest version of the Yang resides in the Yin.

 

King Stannis has a sword that gave off a bright white light while a dude was being burned alive. Yet, he's still fighting the good fight against the Boltons.

 

I stand against the Warden of the North, and his cocaine fueled unsafe medical practices.

 

We like to reduce everything binaries. One is always privileged/normalized and the other is abnormal/demonized. Things are more complicated though and more like a spectrum.

 

More random pop culture Hero/Good in black, Villain/Bad in white theme ...

Disney: Zorro The Fox all black vs The Eagle all white.


Princess Bride Westley (Dread Pirate) all black, Prince Humperdinck celest/white


DragonHeart


Blade


Constantine in black - Lucifer in white


DKR: Animated


Tron


Hunger Games

 

More random pop culture Hero/Good in black, Villain/Bad in white theme ...



Saruman in all white and his white hand mark on his army. ...

Narnia White Witch...


R1 the new villain wears white.

​

The Rogue Heroes mostly in dark colors,

​

In Dynamite's Masks, the classic pulp heroes mostly wear dark to all black. .

\​

The villain wears all white

​

LOL re-reading that ^ again now after the Last Jedi, what Luke achieved, the path he walked and chose to reinvent and bring back the return of Jedi , Now "Last Jedi" really does take a giant dump on everything Luke was and achieved.
Makes it so he failed, now it's Rey who achieves it?

 

It's telling how many artists revisit it...

 

For me, any colour can represent good, any colour can represent bad.

 

I originated two animal splice characters in my story as a “light” and “dark” Seer, with one a pure snowy white albino and the other black-furred, but then I pondered switching them around and having the “dark” Seer be the snowy white one and the good one be the black one, but then you run into the trope of the “albino villain”.

 

Yes the creepy near albino look is just as much a villain cliche in pop culture.
Which kind of disproves the original posters whole point.

















LOL!...

 

Another classic:
Diabolik main antagonist King: leader of a powerful criminal organization, once Diabolik's foster father who trains him in the skills he will need as a criminal.
King eventually betrays Diabolik and plans to murder him.

 

Also, we are at our essence scared monkeys with no natural weapons. So we're naturally fearful of the dark than we are of light.

 

I wouldn't have said this is represented by the media much at all.

I think this is more akin to the origin here; we can't see in the dark, we don't know what's there and so naturally we fear it - we fear the unknown. When it's day, we can see everything, thus the reason black is considered bad I guess?

Doesn't quite explain why white is perceived as good if black is bad, because we don't just see white during daylight.

 

Is that a question, yes I'm talking about it's origin, human primal nature, as in how we physically need light to see.

Yeah
I think several in this thread have shown why that is absolutely not always the case, in several cultures, and even several pop culture examples why it's not.

Uhm, as far as the human condition, you basically need light to see*.


*I'm talking about natural human vision, to the hypster about to post about infrared and other photo sensory tech.

 

Not sure whether you're agreeing, or disagreeing with me here? Your above quote is out of context.

As far as the human condition goes, you're right, but as far as colours go, we don't 'see' white, we see light.

 

Maybe go back and read what I wrote, And stop editing my posts.
You need light to see.

Yes that is the human condition.
You need light to see* anything.


*Again I'm talking about natural human vision, to the hypster about to post about infrared and other photo sensory tech.
Or a how Dolphins, Daredevil and Bats "see" with sonar etc...

 

I didn't edit your posts. You did that yourself. You obviously made a post, screwed it up, I quoted it, and replied to it, then you amended. Take more care in your own posting before attempting to criticise another maybe?

Lose the attitude.

 

Wow. Ok.
My edit was to include in my reply my full quote, which you had edited.
Our whole exchange here begins with you quoting and editing (taking out of it's full context) my original post.
Does it not.

And me saying "you need light to see anything", isn't attitude.
It's the fact that cuts to the core of the discussion, and the point I first made.

 

So I didn't actually edit your post, I just didn't quote all of it. Those are very different things.

I quoted the element of your post that I wanted to reply too. I wouldn't have said I quoted anything out of context. The part of your post that I did quote was relevant to the reply I wished to give. It was only after that you expanded upon it, but I had already left my reply by then.

On this, maybe I am mistaken. I read that in the context of 'open your eyes' and a form of insult.