I thought of this post immediately when I saw the scene. Laughed inappropriately too.
I liked it. Regarding the controversy, I can definitely see why it would make people uncomfortable, but....
This movie was nowhere near as bad as those stupid fucking neo-fascist Kingsman movies (which were also way more violent than this) which I've never seen a media outlet go after.
Oh, I was unclear on one thing...
I actually found the movie rather thought-provoking... definitely a lot of rewatch value for sure. Anyway, my final take on the whole controversy is that it's not like people don't still study movies that had a far worse impact than this probably ever will in film school. I don't think Arthur's actions were morally justifiable and a lot of his behavior was legitimately off-putting, but so much about the wider context was really interesting.
Also... about relating it to the Batman canon... I think it's kind of interesting to maybe interpret this as the origin of the Heath Ledger version, at least as an experiment. To watch Dark Knight with this in mind. I think there were a few things in the movie that leaned toward that, even if age and a bunch of other details don't match up. There's the fact that he painted his face and had a shaggy unkempt green mane rather than something more manicured like Jack Nicholson. There were also a few things he said in the last third that could belong on the same contiuum. Hell, maybe even "these people need now, but when they don't, they'll turn their backs on you", which might reflect a change in attitudes among Gotham residents marking a shift towards greater levels of cruelty.