Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

On the topic of The Simpsons and Values Dissonance, the has a few entries that bother me a bit, especially on bullying. However, there's one subbullet under [Lisa's Date With Density that bothers me a lot, or at least the last part.

• By the same token, Nelson giving Milhouse an unusually brutal walloping, necessitating an ambulance, because he thinks Milhouse sent him a love note that was actually from Lisa. This is far more likely to be seen as a Moral Event Horizon-crossing offense to a modern audience, verging on or constituting a hate crime, whereas at the time it was simply of a piece with Nelson's Bully Brutality elsewhere. Making this worse is that the setup of the scene is horrifyingly very similar to the 2008 murder of Lawrence King.

I haven't heard of the case before reading the article so I had to do a bit of research, so forgive me if I misinterpret anything.

The only similarity I can really see is that both were homophobic crimes done because someone thought the victim was into them (the gay panic defense, I believe). That's about the extent of the similarities. King was shot during a class, not beat up, and Milhouse's letter was mistakenly given to Nelson whereas King's killer was annoyed at people thinking he liked King. I also did search the episode's name alongside King's but found no comparisons between their murder except for here.

I think there's some merit to the claim that the gag relies on Gay Panic being played for laughs, which is looked down upon more now, but the way it's worded is way over the top, complete with bogus intensifiers ("horrifyingly very similar").

The "Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show" entry completely misses the fact that I&S is inspired by old (way older than the episode) slapstick cartoons with limited casts, meaning that introducing a third main character is in fact a huge deal.

Not gonna weigh in on the "Lisa's Date with Density" issue; I haven't seen the episode since the 90s, but I can see why the gay panic joke would feel more uncomfortable nowadays. The entry is far too exaggerated, though.

I tried giving the entry a rewrite. I agree it should stay, forgot to say that initially. Just that the King comparison felt tasteless. I'm unsure how to incorporate the gay panic defense part into it though.

• Nelson gives Milhouse an unusually brutal walloping, necessitating an ambulance, after he thinks Milhouse sent him a love note that was actually from Lisa. Modern audiences are far more likely to see Nelson's reaction as a Homophobic Hate Crime than a case of Bully Brutality.

Edited by SkylaNoivern on Apr 30th 2024 at 3:17:27 AM

The rewrite works. It definitely felt like a joke that wouldn't land today outside of a Crosses the Line Twice context (Gay Panic jokes still exist of course, but usually don't get too violent).

In Babylon 5, we have this:

• The protagonists' actions in “Endgame”. In the post 9/11 era no one would condone the use of telepaths as suicide bombers without risking comparisons to Al-qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS or any extremist group.

I have to admit, I never liked The War on Terror-related Values Dissonance entries. Most times, Values Dissonance relates to attitudes like misogyny, homophobia, bullying, etc. that misguided people in the past thought wasn't as serious and damaging as it is. Values changed, and now we see things differently.

But people before the War on Terror already knew fully well that stuff like targeting civilians to make a political point was absolutely vile. The avoidance of such themes strikes me less as change in values, and more like the results of not making light of the trauma of the terrorist attacks in 9/11 and after.

Besides, those scenes in B5 had the heroes basically strapping bombs on technopath zombies and sending them against an aggressive enemy fleet, NOT against a civilian population. This is actually less ruthless than Sheridan's signature move of sending a fake distress call and setting a nuclear bomb to take out a squadron of Scary Dogmatic Aliens. Also, the scene is supposed to be about the lengths the heroes are willing to go, I'm not sure it's something show as "good", when there is even a What the Hell, Hero? from a minor character.

Also, maybe we're already distant enough from The War on Terror, that we already have people thinking in Dune: Part Two that it's cool when a Dark Messiah starts a holy war that will cost billions of lives..

Edited by renenarciso2 on May 5th 2024 at 7:01:32 AM

Not a comment on your post, but don't give spoilers without saying what the work being spoiled will be. It counts as a Self-Fulfilling Spoiler

That works now, now that you can tell what the work being spoiled will be before you click it.

Edited by KingofNightmares on May 5th 2024 at 11:00:24 AM

This is on Scapegoat Ad:

This is also a case of Values Dissonance as in most countries comparative publicity (that is calling your competitor by name in an ad) is prohibited because their trademark rights allow them to prevent competitors for using their name in marketing campaigns even if its for comparison purposes. In the U.S., however, the right to engage in comparative publicity is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and tourists from other countries can be shocked to see such outright mudslinging in ads on American TV.

It's using VD to mean what would more often be called "culture shock". Do we have anything closer to that?

Sorry, I've edited the post, hope it's within guidelines now?

That seems like proper use of location based Values Dissonance to me, since we have different laws in different countries based in different values.

I'm with Mighty Mewtron.

Till the day everyone is one with the mewtron...

...btw I agree lol

Yep, Values Dissonance allows examples where the dissonance is caused by a difference in cultural values rather than time periods.

Cross Cultural Kerfuffle is similar, but seems more based on making accidental references to things that are considered negative/offensive in a specific country.

Not necessarily a difference in values, though, but different laws. Laws don't necessarily reflect values. Maybe close enough? Though it depends on why are they shocked. If they see it and say "That is just wrong! I think that is so underhanded!" Then it's VD. If they simply say "Huh, didn't know they could do that in the US? Good for them, I guess?" Then it's... well, not VD.

In any case, matters of the First Ammendment are kinda Eagleland Osmosis in many countries, or maybe "would-be Eagleland Osmosis", for folks who are aware of the different laws, but wish their country was like the US.

A lot of far-right and/or libertarian folks here in Brazil are big supporters of American style freedom of speech, for instance, with the far right dudes even mimicking some of the... inconsistencies of the American conservatives (such as complaining about "cancellation", but being totally okay with banning books with LGBT stuff).

Edited by renenarciso2 on May 5th 2024 at 2:59:22 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't say this really has to do with values, because I don't think that people from other countries are morally opposed to commercials taking jabs at the competition. Plus, copyright laws tend to have more to do with corporate lobbying than a country's values.

I think that it can count. The cuase may be copyright, but it can still cause people to see things differently.

Anecdotical, but I remember when the first time I saw a Pepsi commercial mocking Coca Cola, and it kind of made me roll my eyes. I felt it was kind of needy. I don't have any loyalty to any brand over the other, but being used to Pepsi commercials focusing on "fun and party", that one made me think it was kind of pathetic.

I also think there's values dissonance involved. I'm from Sweden, where mentioning competitors' brands in advertising is prohibited (as in, ads have actually been pulled even for fairly innocuous cases). When I came to live in the UK (another country where there's no law against it), I was fairly shocked to see adverts outright dragging the competitors and mentioning them by name.

But were you shocked because of the values part of it or were you shocked because it was legal?

I'm unsure of how things stand legally here in Brazil. I don't see a lot of ads like that, but I do remember one that was pretty clever, by a newspaper that mocked a rival newspaper by representing each newspaper as a guy, and having both guys riding in an elevator, and their dialogue was taken from editorials from each newspaper.

The progressive newspaper came off as cool, the conservative newspaper sounded like a Smug Snake and a Rich Bitch. Of course, that was in the 1990s, before our age of polarization, when all newspapers coveted being seen as moderate, and so the conservative paper having their Old Shame quotes on air sounded very bad.

From YMMV.The Simpsons S 6 E 9 Homer Badman, under Values Resonance:

• This episode takes on a whole new light in the 2020s with the rise of modern social media pile-ons and "cancel culture". While the episode's focus at the time was on the sensationalization and harassment of people by tabloid news, now ordinary people can do the exact same thing to their targets on social media. People attacked by social media pile-ons have suffered everything from depression to bankruptcy to even potentially committing suicide due to the abuse, doxxing and lies told about them. The victims of these attacks are often targeted for simply telling the wrong kind of joke, criticizing a piece of media or even being Wrongly Accused when they're mistaken for someone else who actually did something.

Seems like another "cancel culture = bad" shoehorn to me, but I thought I'd check first.

Edited by UFOYeah on May 6th 2024 at 7:52:24 AM

While I get why they may have come to that conclusion, it's a bit of a stretch to link the two. I'd cut it or at least rewrite it if there are instances out there of it occurring today without referencing cancel culture directly.

As controversial as it is, I've definitely seen people connect the episode to modern-day hysteria, The Mysterious Mr. Enter being one of them. I don't always agree with the conclusions they make about this culture, but I think the spirit of the entry can work, in that it's even easier to dogpile someone over a rumor.

Sounds like a big ROCEJ violation, IMO.

I was looking through Dingo Pictures. While the Values Dissonance section might need a look through as a whole, this entry, in particular, seems off:

• In The Toys Room, it completely lacks a comic relief character or a positive ending, both of which US cartoons would have to keep children interested.

Edited by fragglelover on May 11th 2024 at 3:02:07 AM

Since Creator.Dingo Pictures is a creator page so, yeah, I'm not sure it counts.