This thread's purpose is to discuss politics in works of fiction/media. Please do not use this thread to talk about politics or media in isolation from each other.
REMINDER: US politics is a banned topic. Mentioning or alluding to it will get you thumped or suspended
I was thinking of asking what people thought were the most interesting post-election Trump related media.
The Good Fight on CBS Access devoted their entire second season to dealing with the subject.
Edited by kory on Feb 26th 2025 at 5:46:51 AM
I don't think people have an issue with redemption as much as they have an issue with the scope on what someone can do and still get redeemed being widely expanded upon.
People complain about the Diamonds, but Lapis tried to drown a planet, moved into Steven's barn, and nobody really cared about that.
It's like power scaling, but for crimes. The things the villains do have to get worse and worse.
It is not *good* to show mass murderers and tyrants being redeemed and getting off mostly free with just some guilt (and frankly in the diamond's case i don't see anything that suggest they understood the messed up nature of what they did beyond making pink sad) and a good heart tho. I don't agree with those who hate the very idea of redemption but in my case atleast, it is not about the idea of redemption being bad but who they are choosing to redeem. There is a line to be drawn and there is nothing wrong in accepting that going ridiculously over that line can make redemption very hard if not outright impossible. If children's media can't accept that, then one idea would be to not show mass carnage and pain inducing tyrants as your target of redemption. Those kind of people don't even make 0.1% of the criminal population who need and could benefit from rehabilitative justice anyways. I am all for peaceful resolution and Steven universe did that we'll plenty even before the diamonds where it worked well. Same with Naruto where it was fine until before someone as far gone as Nagato being talked done by him when even his teacher who he had a closer bond with couldn't do it.
Edited by xyzt on Dec 13th 2022 at 9:17:21 PM
Because it's another case of moralizing wank and puriteen nonsense.
"Oh, but they did bad things, they're horrible, they're monstrous!" I've heard it all before. The whole point is you can't JUST beat someone into submission and call it a day, that certain villains come out of pre-existing societal issues and those issues need to be addressed.
Especially because the specific SU context is that the only real opportunities Steven gets to shatter the Diamonds is after they start showing remorse.
He theoretically had a bunch of chances to shatter Blue, but that would have made everything significantly worse, shattering Yellow would have been the same deal and he never got close enough to White's gem to do anything to it.
Like, what, if a dictator surrenders and starts at least attempting to make amends, you're supposed to murder them anyway? I don't know, that's kind of a horrible concept that feeds into the idea that redemption isn't possible.
Steven Universe, at least, is legitimately flawed. I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But it's really, really not fascist apologia.
(Shattering Blue also wouldn't have helped anyone, because she was emotionally abusive to everyone around her, but seemingly had very little to do with running the empire, to the point that Yellow complained about it. Shattering Yellow would have just resulted in White hiding herself away and taking direct control.)
Edited by Zendervai on Dec 13th 2022 at 11:02:02 AM
![]()
You can acknowledge that said horrible people were borne from pre-existing severe societal issues while also accepting that they specifically are too far gone. The impact would be stronger to accept that imo since it strengthens the need to resolve said issues so that no future too far gone cases arise.
Edited by xyzt on Dec 13th 2022 at 9:32:07 PM
Then you're asking for a completely different show. That's not how any of them roll.
![]()
The fact that the villains in SU backed off is a sign they aren't too far gone.
Like...okay, so She-Ra, the other show controversial for this sort of thing. There is no attempt whatsoever to try and redeem Horde Prime. He's evil, he's malignant and he shows no remorse whatsoever and he doesn't get even the slightest opportunity to redeem himself. Catra, Hordak and Wrong Hordak (who isn't really evil at all) are the ones who get the opportunities because they're individual flawed people who are clearly the target of a ton of abuse and don't know how to handle it in a way that doesn't involve lashing out. (Except Wrong Hordak, he barely knows what's going on most of the time.)
Like, that's the thing. If someone is too far gone for redemption, they don't back off. They don't stop, they just keep going. You really don't want to send the message that "it doesn't matter if they try to do better, if someone did something awful, they intrinsically deserve to die regardless of how they act".
Edited by Zendervai on Dec 13th 2022 at 11:09:31 AM
Steven Universe wasn't the first to perform redemption with a tyrant, not even close. That sort of thing has been happening for decades prior. It's odd that they get this much of a backlash amongst the general You Tube/Internet audience. One of the most famous redemptions of a tyrant was Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi, and Star Wars as a franchise didn't have nearly as big a backlash. If you're saying it's because he died because of his redemption, death is a small payment for harm rendered. Dragon Ball has been doing that sort of thing constantly. How many villains are mass murderers, conquerors, genocidal maniacs and their big punishment is that they get their asses kicked or spent time dead in a series where death is meaningless? DB is among the most prolific anime in the world, and one of their main characters have body counts that would could be measured in tera-Hitlers.
It comes to a point, what makes a character considered getting off easy? That they didn't get their asses kicked? That they didn't die? Vegeta prior to his complete redemption in the Buu arc did a fraction of the atonement that the Diamonds did. At least the Diamonds ensured a smooth transfer to Era-3, even if their post Era-3 selves did miniscule. And it comes to a point where what matters more emotionally? That evil is punished or that good is performed? And why are some stories getting that additional scrutiny, while some aren't? Like, I still enjoy DB as a guilty pleasure despite my nagging qualms with it, but I won't say people who enjoy DB unironically are Nazi apologists as some internet commentators have done to SU (Lily Orchard, comes to mind).
Edited by HeyMikey on Dec 13th 2022 at 8:19:54 AM
Part of the problem, I think, is that SU in particular operates on two different levels. There's the literal events of the show...but there's also a metaphorical level that's about the breaking of a chain of abuse. Steven doesn't kill the Diamonds...but he does break their control and sets more or less healthy boundaries for himself where their emotional well-being is not his problem, and removes their ability to manipulate his day to day life.
If he shattered the Diamonds, that makes the metaphorical level of the show completely repugnant in a lot of ways because "murder the person who is emotionally abusive to you" is really not the right answer.
But a lot of people don't really have the knowledge or vocabulary to really get that the show is saying two different things at the same time and entirely engage with it on a completely literal level. The Diamonds don't operate like any historical human dictators, they operate like abusive family members.
Edited by Zendervai on Dec 13th 2022 at 11:21:31 AM
If you're saying it's because he died because of his redemption, death is a small payment for harm rendered
This argument doesn't work, death is not a small payment. Darth Vader removed himself from the story, it's very easy to be accepting a redemption when the redeemed is just gone. That's why Darth Vader never got the kind of response Steven Universe got, if you supported redemption then he was technically redeemed and if you supported death then he died.
It's essentially the 'best' of both worlds, unlike Steven Universe there was no way for either side to get particularly offended.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Dec 13th 2022 at 8:23:22 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Some of the EU stuff went with the idea that Leia never forgave him. She kinda ended up understanding what happened, but she quite simply couldn't forgive him for what he'd done because he did so much evil and harm and specifically hounded her and was one of the causes of her home and entire family dying horribly with the Death Star blast, along with tons of her friends and compatriots who he murdered personally.
She points out in one of the books that Luke found it much easier to forgive him because Luke's interactions with Vader were like, 80% Vader trying to get Luke to join him, which were harrowing but not nearly as much of an extended period of Vader ruining his life over and over. Like, if you pay attention to the movies, Leia never once has a positive or even neutral interaction with Vader.
Edited by Zendervai on Dec 13th 2022 at 11:27:36 AM
![]()
Vader wasn't a flunkie, he held a massive amount of power in-story and narratively was the main villain for most of the original trilogy.
Being the villain's #2 is a distinctively different role to that of a minion like Vegeta.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Dec 13th 2022 at 8:25:39 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangVegeta was working as part of Freeza's forces but his actions in the Saiyan Arc were totally him abandoning his mission as part of Freeza's forces to go hunt for the Dragon Balls. His actions afterwards were completely of his own volition. He wasn't acting as a flunky for Freeza.
Of course, if we *were* to go with a villain who was absolutely the Big Bad of an arc, there's Piccolo.
I mean, more importantly, this was also the 1980's. The 1980's didn't have the kind of culture we see now where "Is Steven Universe fascist apologia?" is a serious topic of debate for some people.
Yeah, I think Steven Universe's issue definitely came from the mixed metaphor thing. The diamonds couldn't die because on some level they represent a toxic family dynamic.
The only other villain I can think of who was both leader of a terrible empire and also representative of terrible family trauma is Ozai from Atl A and they end up not killing that guy either.
Formerly Hail Muffins (He/Him)
In any case,even if Iroh could challenge and defeat his brother it would probably tear the empire apart through a civil war between those who support the dragon the west and those trying to reclaim the throne from the usurper,with Steven universe outright removing the diamonds through force like Bismuth wanted to do with the Break point would also cause a power vacuum and probably a gem civil war
have a listen and have a link to my discord server![]()
A similar occurrence comes up in One Piece's Fishman Island arc. The villain is a Fishman supremecist who wants to take over the island to enforce his hatred of humanity, and the Straw Hat Pirates' battle with his crew had to be deliberately framed to make it clear they're fighting on Fishman Island's behalf, or else have it be seen as yet another chapter of human/fishman discrimination.
Edited by sgamer82 on Dec 13th 2022 at 8:50:57 AM
Being a minion is not really much an excuse for going above and beyond what was requested. Vegeta wasn't Kamau from Primal. He wasn't a completely reluctant slave whose every horrific action was for sake of his life or the life of his loved ones. Vegeta reveled in the slaughter, just by judging his actions when he wasn't on Frieza's leash or under his direct orders. He didn't have to genocide the Arlians (Toei filler, I know), nor blow up multiple cities in their search for the Dragon Balls, or slaughter that one Namekian village. He may have been a minion, but he was a genocidal murderer all the same. To say he wasn't a tyrant because he was a minion, is to say he should get some leeway for not having their positions reversed. That is not the mark of a good person, and if Vegeta was in Frieza's place, he'd do much of the same thing. Not to mention, Frieza was allowed to keep tyranting in DBS, and unlike the Diamonds, didn't even change his status quo. Only reason he isn't being stopped is because he's not actively targeting Earth, so if you put a magnifying glass on it, DB is saying being a tyrant is an acceptable outcome, as long as you don't be a tyrant to the people I like.

Regarding marginalized kids, it's to make sure they don't grow with resentment, frustration and anger?
"Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try."