How do the dominant cultural narratives in art and mass media affect our politics?

The same people who venerate Rick also utterly despise Jerry for disliking Rick - despite the fact that Jerry has every reason to hate Rick.

Guy's a verbally abusive asshole who exploits his daughter's abandonment issues to get away with shit and drag his grandchildren on dangerous adventures.

But apparently being Crazy Awesome means you can get away with everything. :/

Of course Jerry is still a jerk, but who isn't in that dysfunctional family?

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jul 17th 2018 at 6:02:51 PM

One reason I like the season 3 finale was that it ended with Jerry winning over Beth and the rest of the family. Rick even grudgingly concedes that Jerry "won". Beth makes it clear that if Rick wants to stay with them then he has to respect Jerry too. And while Rick isn't thrilled about it, he ultimately does stay since as much as he might wish otherwise he does need his family.

Edited by M84 on Jul 18th 2018 at 12:09:50 AM

Still need to watch all of the third season at some point - an aquaintance introduced me to the show, but I kinda fell off the wagon after the the whole fandom kerfuffle.

The fandom went apeshit over a fucking restaurant condiment. One that isn't even that good. It still makes me shake my head in disgust. The fandom that is, not the sauce — it wasn't that bad either.

Edited by M84 on Jul 18th 2018 at 12:10:01 AM

@Rick and Morty:

That's why I said most. It's so refreshing see someone "beating" Rick.

Jonathon Mc Intosh aka the Pop Culture Detective gives his take on Luke Skywalker's arc in the original and sequel Star Wars trilogies and the fan response to them.

https://news.avclub.com/here-s-a-good-take-in-the-ongoing-war-over-luke-skywalk-1827546398

The long and short of it is that Luke's moment of weakness, where he almost kills Vader, tends to be misread as a moment of strength which is a misunderstanding of the scene. This misunderstanding, according to Mc Intosh, is what is responsible for the backlash to Luke's depiction in TLJ.

On the one hand, this is a good reading of the scene and is a subversive message.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if saying Luke choosing not to fight murderous tyrants is a god thing.

It's been a long time so we I've seen Rot J, but did Luke really refuse to fight Palpetine or was he just preoccupied with being electrocuted to death?

No he threw aside his lightsaber before the frying.

The guy misunderstands Luke's plan.

He is forgetting Luke's plan is not pure pacifism but distracting Palpatine until the Death Star blows up and kills them all.

This isn't a read on the film either but just what the novelization says.

Mind you, it's pretty clear in the movie too.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 18th 2018 at 7:45:42 AM

Pacifism seems to get romanticized a lot these days in media.

Really?

I've never seen any romanticism of pacifism. Usually it's just, "it's nice in theory but better to murder the fuck out of people."

"Cowboy Cops" aren't unpopular either these days. The fact that there are many people in Real Life who think that torture is the most effective form of interrogation already saying much.

Edited by VeryVileVillian on Jul 18th 2018 at 9:42:01 PM

You do to some degree, though mostly in the variety of technical pacifists.

Technical Pacifist kind of is a sliding definition. A lot of people seem, "people who aren't Blood Knight killers."

Which is something which SHOULD be the norm.

Edit:

Any fans of the Expanse books?

I just realized the Laconian Empire is basically the First Order from Star Wars. They're a breakaway faction who hid in the Unknown Regions then returned 30 years later to wreck their revenge with a brainwashed new generation.

I wonder if it's deliberate as the authors are huge nerds and included a bunch of Warhammer 40K nods.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 18th 2018 at 1:15:19 AM

I am wondering about how White Hair, Black Heart affect people that looks like it, including people with non-severe forms of albinism (that tend to look like the Crybaby version of Ryo/Satan).

I imagine that is not really pretty, it might be useful to do cosplays...but even then it can be problematic (I remember how a group of Berserk fanboys mocked an actual albino for doing a elaborate cosplay of Griffith).

This was a good lengthy discussion of FASCISM IN STAR WARS.

On the other hand, there's also the villification members of oppressed groups get when they defend themselvs physically. And from the fictional side, you have stuff like Avatar The Last Airbender's finale and Star Wars: The Clone Wars episode where killing a Separatist that has attacked neutral territory is seen as a bad thing.

Here are two videos by Lily Peet on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjnjtKpBwk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sl9go6opo

Edited by windleopard on Jul 18th 2018 at 9:11:25 AM

The thing about AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER's finale is it's about Aang trying to find a way which doesn't involve him betraying his commitment to being a Technical Pacifist. I'm not sure a children's show saying that, "No, we don't want to endorse a 12 year old murdering people or murdering people in general" is a bad thing. Especially since Ozai is arrested and imprisoned.

Mind you, that Clone Wars ending is ridiculous and I take the Alternate Character Interpretation Obi-Wan Kenobi isn't remotely upset about killing the guy and would hack off his hand right there if not for the fact his Actual Pacifist girlfriend is there.

It's also dying for a How it Should Have Ended where Obi-Wan grabs it with telekinesis.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 18th 2018 at 9:18:55 AM

Yeah. Ozai in prision is a fine idea, is just that the whole chain of events was basically a cop out to prevent Aang from killing him. If Aang was fighting willing to kill him, but still managed to beat him without killing him, I can buy that.

However. Aang got a Turtle that gave him nice nullifying powers so he didn't had to worry about killing him at all.

I like the ending, but that part...I can see the issue.

The show certainly was clear that the world is better without Ozai tho.

Also. @windleopard, It's amazing how cultural differences work there, where I like, Revenge and Fighting Back is actively encouraged. Albeit, I wouldn't say that ATLA demonizes the people fighting back the Fire Nation, just the ones that goes to misplace their rage against innocents or become as brutal as their enemy.

Seriously. Is weird hearing that as someone from a culture that actively encourages confrontation.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 18th 2018 at 11:43:36 AM

The writers could have simply not brought up the question of Aang killing or not killing Ozai. We know there are ways to imprison firebenders - we saw that with the Boiling Rock. More importantly, isn't Aang putting his own personal feelings above everything else what allowed the Fire Nation to get this far in the war to begin with?

Don't pose a morally complex question and then punk out.

'd

Edited by windleopard on Jul 18th 2018 at 9:40:54 AM

Well it's not a punk out since Aang's response is to literally banish all of his previous selves from his life. Good, decent people he removes from his life because he feels that strongly. It's not a no. It's a "you disgust me and I hate you" no.

I.e. a very firm answer to the question.

But much like those scummy benders to the TRUE moral heroes of the verse in the Equalists, the audience doesn't always agree.

In the comic books, there's actually a decent Ozai moment that displays a surprising amount of wisdom in a Villain Has a Point way when Zuko comes to him for advice. Zuko uses a childhood story about how he saved a turtle from an eagle and then wondered if the eagle would starve. So, he assumes that Ozai would agree with the latter because he's a predator and they need to do.

Ozai says, no, Zuko, that's not the lesson. The lesson being as Fire Lord, he is the one making the choice for who to benefit and who to suffer and he has to live with the consequences. Mind you, he says it like a madman but the point is still a good one.

As a leader you have to make those kind of choices all the time.

Aang's argument for not killing Ozai is not necessarily a perfect one but there is no perfect answer and he made his choice quite decisively. No killing, ever.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 18th 2018 at 9:48:25 AM

Yeah. The whole stuff was weird, I know that they want to finish Aang' arc in a big way, but that was weird.

I don't think that Aang was against stopping Ozai at all.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 18th 2018 at 11:48:33 AM

Mind you, Superman had no choice but to kill General Zodd to save lives and people HATED that because it didn't fit with their idea of Superman.

Part of the problem with the Avatar example is the way Energybending was introduced at practically the eleventh hour to give Aang a means of nonlethally ending Ozai's threat.

Um, what are you talking about? Aang doesn't banish his previous selves. And it's obvious that he just wants them to tell him what he want to hear, not what he needs to hear. He's accepted that he has to kill Ozai until the Lion Turtle appears and grants him deus ex energybending.

I have no idea what that crack about the Equalists is supposed to be about.

Like I said, the writers didn't have to bring it up, especially at the end of the series, if they didn't want to deal with it.