Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

From Falling Down. These seem very general and non-statement-y.

• Values Resonance: For a film made in the early 90s, quite a lot of its issues have become more prominent in the 21st century.
  • In the era of mass shootings and violence, the threat of someone like Foster is a nightmare that is more prominent to the public.
  • Nick's homophobia toward two gay customers is already bad, but with gay rights and transgender discrimination a more prominent issue decades later, it makes him even more of a monstrous asshole. The character is literally a Nazi, I don't think he can get much worse
  • Foster's issues largely stem from being laid off from his job of making missiles. As outsourcing, downsizing, and layoffs have become more prominent in the early 21st century, and the American dream becomes less accessible, Foster's plight has become more relatable to many Americans.
  • The police officers Elizabeth calls dismiss her when she states that her ex-husband was only emotionally abusive. This (possibly) nearly gets her and her daughter killed when Foster finally gets to her. As issues like domestic violence and its effects become more and more prominent, Elizabeth's own plight has gained more and more relevance.
  • It is implied the "not economically viable man" was denied a loan for being black. With racial disparities gaining more prominence in public consciousness, the plight of the man is more relevant. The seems like a stretch
  • Much of the movie sees Prendergast disrespected and ridiculed by his colleagues for his seemingly lax approach to police work, despite the fact that Prendergast's methods are more beneficial and end up helping him catch Foster. With police brutality, corruption, and toxic work environments, and increasing disdain toward "Copaganda" as major social issues today, the moral about how police officers ought to conduct is one that is more prominent than in the early 1990s.

Yeah, all that stuff was relevant in 1993. I think it can be cut.

Trying again for this entry in Northanger Abbey:

"John Thorpe describes someone as being "rich as a Jew". However, this is actually Values Dissonance from John Thorpe, not from Jane Austen. She indirectly criticizes his xenophobia earlier in the story. The Setting Update version from The Austen Project doesn't change this at all, with the result that John comes off much worse much more quickly."

Personally I think it can be cut, but I wanted to get input. It's the only time Jane Austen even refers directly to Judaism in her published works (IDK about her unfinished stories and her juvenalia) and I think most people only get to Northanger after reading her other novels, which only refer obliquely to prejudices against people who aren't white and Christian. So I think most readers find it shocking to suddenly see a character exhibit such naked bigotry. However, I think it's fair to say that this is not Austen's view, and the entry as presently written also notes that. Although nobody ever tells him off for saying that, everything else John Thorpe says and does demonstrates him to be a self-serving, ignorant, and dishonest blowhard with no redeeming values.

From Xenosaga:

• Values Resonance:
  • The fact that the main character of the trilogy is a woman - and she's treated not as special for being a woman so much as the fact that she herself is skilled.
  • The fact that the first game advertised that the music was performed by the London Philharmonic Orchestra - long before Video games kept symphony orchestras alive.

As annoyingly rare as they can be, I don't think having female protagonists who averted Samus Is a Girl was that unusual in the 2000s. Already as of Super Metroid they were depicting Samus as a badass on her own merits. Also, given that I didn't know anything about the orchestra advertisement for the game, it probably isn't a good example.

Yeah, in no world is "Orchestras perform music for a video game" a value.

could that count as Deliberate Values Dissonance then? i've admittedly been a bit confused as to whether DVD can apply to characters or if it has to be the work as a whole

yeah cut both of those, they're hardly relevant at all

I don't think it would be DVD, since Thorpe isn't from a different society/generation/class than the protagonist. Both she and Thorpe are part of the genteel class, as was Austen herself.

My own opinion is that Thorpe fits best under Politically Incorrect Villain (I added that to his character entry a while ago) because of the Greedy Jew + xenophobic attitude towards French refugees. Possibly it might make it Fair for Its Day because while Austen doesn't do An Aesop about bigotry the way she does about what makes happy marriages, I think she was indirectly criticizing a common prejudice in the society she was a part of (British gentry / aspiring gentry) by including "antisemitism" as a trait of a character who had universally bad traits.

x4 Not just that, but another 2002-2003 PS2 JRPG, Dark Chronicle, advertises itself as having Hollywood voice acting in the English version.

Therefore, the blurb about Xenosaga having a world-renowned orchestra should be cut from Values Resonance.

However, both examples (the former about voice acting and the latter about orchestral music) would be better off in Seinfeld Is Unfunny (and both games are approaching the two-decade mark in their home country of Japan and thus are eligible for addition in Seinfeld Is Unfunny).

Edited by Nen_desharu on May 11th 2022 at 10:20:23 AM

I have a couple of entries in the Western Animation folder of Values Resonance that I'd like to question:

• Animaniacs:
  • The "Please Please Please Get a Life Foundation" sketch, where the Warners mock fans who argue over the insignificant details of their show, became even more relevant as the Internet and social media became more accessible, leading to increased fandom visibility and online Caustic Critics being more prevalent. It's become a common meme nowadays to link a screenshot from the bit as a response to heated fandom drama or nitpicking. I can see what this entry is trying to tell, but I'm not sure if nitpicking about media you don't like is really a value.
• SpongeBob SquarePants: As stated by this video, the episode "Ripped Pants" perfectly captures the fleeting nature of meme culture even when it was released in 1999. By ripping his pants, SpongeBob becomes the most popular guy on the beach, but by trying to ride on its fame a little too much, the joke loses its value, alienating even his closest friends. That's certainly true, but I don't know if Discredited Memes constitute a value either.
• Tom and Jerry: What Jerry does for the Lion in "Jerry and the Lion" is actually a pretty noble thing to do when taking into consideration the modern views of circuses, especially after the calling out of animal abuse found within the likes of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey. Indeed, lions belong out in the jungle (or savannas) rather than in circuses at the mercy of whips and loud noises. I agree with what this entry says, but the tone of the last sentence makes it sound like a lecture or something. I suppose this entry could be rewritten to address both the fact that Jerry helped the lion return to Africa, and the fact that this fits more with the modern views on circuses, and change the last clause to be written differently.

I think I added the Please Please Please Get a Life entry at least on the YMMV page. Around the time of the reboot, I specifically remember seeing people on Twitter talk about how it resonates more strongly now that social media has become more mainstream and more fans are sharing smug opinions freely. The "value" in question is the sketch's message not to get so obsessive over cartoon fandoms.

Edited by mightymewtron on May 12th 2022 at 2:02:17 PM

I understand your point, thanks for your reply.

No problem. As for the other two entries:

• The external source proves this is someone's opinion, so I guess it's a decent argument, but the lesson is less about "doing the same thing over and over makes it unfunny" and more about going too far with the joke... which is also something that's an issue in meme culture so maybe it still works.
• This entry needs more context on what Jerry does to help the lion and how that relates to the modern criticism of circuses. I assume he gets the lion out of an abusive circus?

On ValuesDissonance.Calvin And Hobbes:

• In the first arc of Valentine's Day strips, Calvin gives Susie a card with "Drop dead" written on it. Susie merely retaliates by throwing a snowball at Calvin. Assuming Susie told her parents or Miss Wormwood, Calvin would these days be fighting a school suspension.

I'd say this counts, but there's an inaccuracy here in that this didn't occur at school. How could it be rewritten?

My suggestion would be:

• In the first arc of Valentine's Day strips, Calvin gives Susie a card with "Drop dead" written on it. Susie merely retaliates by throwing a snowball at Calvin. Assuming either Susie or Calvin's parents found out about this, such behavior from Calvin would be taken much more seriously.

From Values Dissonance under YMMV.Fudge:

• Dr. Cone suggesting Peter get another turtle would not fly in the twenty-first century. People know that beloved pets are not easily replaced, especially when they die in a senseless accident. It's even lampshaded by Peter when he starts crying, and he tells his parents bluntly that another turtle won't make him feel better since Fudge isn't even sorry. I don't think this counts, since Peter is the protagonist, so I think Cone was meant to be in the wrong for suggesting he get another turtle.

Yeah, that strikes me more as opinion than anything.

A Boy Named Charlie Brown

• Values Dissonance: The African American boy in the spelling bee is drawn with obvious lips (Franklin, who had been introduced to the strip a year prior, was never depicted as such). On the other hand, he doesn't get eliminated first. The Asian girl can also qualify.

Is the second sentence relevant? The Asian girl example doesn't give any context either. This is what she looks like.

Edited by nw09 on May 25th 2022 at 1:57:24 AM

The Asian girl's skin is kind of yellow (or olive really), maybe that's what they mean?

The Asian girl's skin indeed has a weird colour. I understand a little, but honsetly I don't see the design of the black boy as that bad, honestly. And of course, the example in itself doesn't say how this is supposed to be a dissonance, just talks about a design choice, but doesn't explain how (or if) it would be seen badly today.

YMMV.Arthur

• In “Poor Muffy”, Muffy is served leftovers for dinner and complains about it as other people touched it before. In a post-COVID-19 pandemic era, serving your house guest leftovers for dinner would be not only been seen as rude, but risking them getting sick.

Opinions on this?

The concept of disease-tainted food existed before COVID.

Not to mention, if your house guest is already you know, in your house they're probably going to be fine eating food served by you since they're probably in close proximity to you.

Plus, depending on the type of leftovers, it wouldn't have been touched. People aren't sticking their hands in leftover soup.

I saw something else about this episode complaining about Muffy being served leftovers. Is this someone's weird wonk?

(Also most leftovers aren't served from the plates where people ate so it's probably not more germy than serving fresh food if you cook it right, and you can re-cook leftovers.)

I brought it up in another thread that the same person who added that in Values Dissonance also added the same thing to Strawman Has a Point:

• In “Poor Muffy”, Muffy complains when she is being served leftovers for dinner from the night before she stayed over at Francine’s. While the audience is supposed to view Muffy as being rude. It can viewed as the Frenskys being rude due to serving their guest leftovers as if they don’t value her as a guest.

As stated, the same person added both, so it seems to be an... odd wonk (I removed the above point, and I don't think they've added either back, so...)