Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Can you elaborete on your response to me ?

The fact they operate on their own logic instead of an external one. It's like they want to rationalize something even though it's portrayed as detrimental to them.

A lot of people are just incredibly bad at critical thinking and immediately go for "that looks the most cool, it must be the correct side".

Even if what they see is a fascist being a blubbering mess begging to be spared?

They ignore the blubbering at the end and remember the Do Not Do This Cool Thing at the beginning. If they even make it to the end of the work.

And if both are present in the beginning?

Well.. I suppose they could frame it as tragic hero or ignore it. Seriously we are talking about that sort of person who thinks that Trump is tough guy despite the fact he is pathetic.

Edited by Risa123 on Aug 17th 2022 at 4:28:32 PM

So, they're people that engage in high amounts of copium then.

Well it is not like anybody says otherwise.

I reckon it’s the type of person who thinks being brave equals being a bully.

And what would that person think if the bully cowers away?

It isn't like co-opting antagonists as icons is something exclusive to fascists - it's the same thing with Disney giving all their villains affectations of high camp, maybe some people associated campiness with (fantastical, unrealistic) villainy but the fanbase is more prominent.

You can't really control how people react to your work individually, it's just particularly difficult when it involves an odious worldview that specialises in ignoring context for its own purposes.

No offense, but stop expecting that people who are insane to act in racional manner. Sure as i said there is some internal logic in their actions, but they are fundamentally delusional. Thats all.

Edited by Risa123 on Aug 17th 2022 at 8:52:27 PM

Maybe I'm sounding too much like Data in regards to these questions.

Ugh. No. Brushing people off as "just crazy" is a thought-terminating cliché that blocks any attempt to understand how people end up with such dangerous and unrealistic beliefs and prevent or counteract them. Psychology didn't mature as a field until it stopped treating actual mental illness that way, and it's no less true with politics.

With something like Disney's Villains, I'd say a big thing is that they come across less as terrible people and more as archetypes.

Basically, "Villain" is simply a role that they've opted to fill. We know the story needs a villain, so they play that part out. That they seem to enjoy it simply makes them more charming.

On a meta-level, we understand the story needs a villain, and they're filling it out with enthusiasm and professional pride.

They were also, for a very long time, the only queer-coded characters of prominence. Ursula was literally based on a drag queen and Scar and Jafar are both queer-coded up the wazoo.

They're fun, campy villains who are framed as if they're gay, of course the gay community is going to go for them.

That sort of thing is fine, IMO, it's things like people sitting there and going "the First Order are the secret good guys!" because there's generally no intelligible reason for it, they just like the cool regimented side of the conflict. Or they're fascists and want to root for the other fascists.

You are right that we should try to understand people's beliefs even when they seem crazy to us, but we should also recognize that they are fundamentally delusional in the end.

Edited by Risa123 on Aug 17th 2022 at 9:17:00 PM

Right. I wasn't trying to argue that Disney villain fandom is bad, just that it's another example of the same process happening, people latching onto characters they identify with regardless of authorial intent, and whether the reason they identify with them is bad to an outside observer or the author isn't really a factor in that.

To clarify I was more explaining specifically what happens with Disney, to some extent in contrast with certain other fandoms.

RE: Noaqiyeum ([1])

Woah, now, what did Baron Klaus Wulfenbach do to you? Is this the Roast of Klaus or something?

I'm joking, btw.

Edited by m-95 on Aug 17th 2022 at 4:00:52 AM

x10

I notice the whole Rooting for the Empire-Misaimed Fandom business with villains a lot. Although what you just said made me realize something about the whole phenomenon. Namely, that the political position of the Misaimed Fan almost always lines up with what kind of villainy the villain in question is doing. To explain:

• Liberal, Socialist, and other generally Left-wing^note (as in, Left of the mainstream political spectrum, don't lecture me about how Liberals are actually Right-wing when analyzing the full spectrum because I get that) types tend to idealize small-scale villains who either don't have much in terms of authority or don't fully use what authority they have. The kinds of villains who commit crimes in individual cities or towns. Examples include The Babadook, Pennywise, Daenerys Targaryen (remember all the yas queen stuff?), and (one I have seen people rooting for myself) Luke Castellan.
• Conservative, Fascist, and other generally Right-wing^note (Yes, Fascism is Right-wing no matter what PragerU says, it's unconventional but it's still Right-wing) types tend to idealize more large-scale villains who have power and authority and use it directly against the heroes, typically by leading some kind of nation-conquering military force. These are the villans who you might defend by saying, for instance, that they bring stability and peace. Examples include Palpatine & The Empire, The Emperor of Mankind (admittedly more antihero than straight villain), Charles zi Britannia, and Colonel Miles Quaritch.

Probably the only exceptions to this observation would be how the Joker (2019 version) and Patrick Bateman have a lot of Right-leaning fans - although I'm like 90% sure that Patrick Bateman's fanbase is purely ironic. Similarly (another example I've seen myself), people who think Yazov & the Black League are goodies are almost all Lefties.

x5

Ursala I get, but what's gay about Scar or Jafar?

Edited by m-95 on Aug 17th 2022 at 4:09:45 AM

Tone of voice, the way they move, stuff like that. It's coding, as in how they're framed and act and stuff like that. And no, Jafar wanting to marry Jasmine doesn't cancel it out. He barely seems to care about her in any concrete way and just wants to use her to get the throne of Agrabah.

And in terms of some of those examples...the Babadook became a big thing because of a meme. The movie was accidentally listed on Netflix as an LGBT movie for a bit and I don't think anyone was seriously idolizing it. Pennywise is in sort of the same boat. Daenerys also has the wrinkle of the show downplaying a lot of her more negative traits after the first season and glossing over stuff from the books. When the main thing you get from her after season 1 is "she frees slaves, is personally likeable and opposes the genuinely incredibly fucked up rulers of Westeros", it's not hard to see why people would see her more positively.

Some of this runs into one of the big things about a lot of media. It's focused on preserving the status quo. And when a lot of people find the current status quo deeply repugnant for various reasons (many of which are entirely legitimate), the villain who wants to tear down the status quo but who isn't actually wrong about anything starts to look better.

Edited by Zendervai on Aug 17th 2022 at 4:09:55 AM

I think Scar's case might be due to his sense of theatrics (in "Be Prepared" specifically) but even then that is a huge stretch. Especially considering the song in question seems more fascist-coded.

Jafar (and Frollo) are even less lgbt-coded since they are motivated by desiring a person of the opposite gender (to varying extents. Frollo represses his lust and Jafar is also motivated by power IIRC)

Edit: okay I missed the points mentioned , it has been a long time since I've seen anything involving the specific villains.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Aug 17th 2022 at 1:16:38 AM