Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

That whole thing looks like (family-)cultural dissonance. Depends on how formal you are about "guests" - In my area, a kid staying over for the night with their buddy gets whatever the family would normally be eating.

Found this on YMMV.Nichijou under Values Dissonance:

---

• Episode 24. The first time Sasahara talks to Mio is marked by an Imagine Spot of a bunch of Mios... raising the flag on Iwo Jima?

---

Frankly, I have no idea what this is trying to say, and there isn't much to indicate if/why it's a case of Values Dissonance.

I haven't seen most of Nichijou, this episode included, but from what I could glean in passing, Sasahara is a classmate that Mio has a crush on, so the Iwo Jima reference would presumably be more in-line with western portrayals of the WWII battle (i.e. a moment of victory for the Allies); if the Iwo Jima reference was meant in a negative context, then it'd more readily make sense given that Japan lost that battle. It hasn't been 20 years since the Nichijou anime came out either, so if the dissonance in question is a temporal case rather than a cross-cultural one, it'd be too soon to call it.

Given this, would it be best to remove the point?

Edited by bowserbros on Jun 11th 2022 at 11:33:46 AM

Be kind.

YMMV.Cheaper By The Dozen has three Values Dissonance examples. While the first and third examples seem to be valid, I'm not sure about this second one:

• It can also clash with the values of some people that stereotype people with way too many kids as welfare-drains. While the Bakers don't seem to have any trouble providing for twelve kids, Tina does subscribe to the theory that no one should have twelve kids.

What is that even trying to say? Cut.

Cut it for not explaining itself if nothing else.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

There's this on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Diamond is Unbreakable.

• Koichi falling in love and having a relationship with his crazed stalker, Yukako Yamagishi, can feel quite awkward and uncomfortable in modern-day America due to its strong stance on stalkers nowadays.

...Is this trying to say stalkers aren't seen as an issue in Japan?

I’m gonna put some Gloom in your eye.

Alright, removed it and cited this thread.

Be kind.

From the Addams page:

• Gomez and Morticia accepting "Normal" Pubert even though they don't understand or like the changes they saw, because they want him to be happy and healthy, can still resonate with viewers who face disapproval, bigotry, and ostracization from their family over things out of their control (gender identity, romantic/sexual orientation, disability, illness).

and

• In the TV series, Gomez and Morticia were actually excellent parents, openly involved in their children's lives and showing genuine concern and affection for them In their creepy but cool way. Gomez is usually involved as well.
• Not only were they were among the first TV couples who openly and passionately showed their affection for each other, they always functioned as a team, with one never keeping secrets or vocally resenting the other in any way. It's also completely egalitarian; any important decisions about the children, they make together. They both show complete respect to each other at all times, and even when they disagree, they always try to hear the other one out and reach a solution they both can agree upon. Even today, few dom-coms depict married couples as being in anything but love/hate relationships, making Gomez and Morticia's marriage the most idealistic ever depicted on television!
• The very first episode has the Addams express an aversion to formal schooling for their children, preferring their children to learn things like art, music, and spider-breeding at home. With the ongoing debate about schools as standardized testing factories and ideological indoctrination centers, as well as art subjects often being overlooked or the first to get cut when it comes to funding, this is more relevant than ever.

Is parents not hating their baby really this applause-worthy and revolutionary? (And in the movie, they are still horrified by him.) The second is very similar to the Values Resonance entry that got cut from the Munsters YMMV page, and I was wondering why one has to go and not the other when they share the same context. The part about art doesn't seem to really apply here, either.

My life was nothing until your your sweet presence breathed the breath of love into my soul.

Cut. Parents being decent people isn't something that should need celebration.

Were loving parents really rare for this time? I know the Awful Wedded Life is a common sitcom trope now, but was it really when this show came out?

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

That whole thing with the Addams family examples seems iffy at best. And seems to take as truth the idea that school is outright bad, not exceptions. I think the problem that it is not being compared with the contemporary series, but with current ones. I do think that there is an overprevalence of Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist today, but with how averse to knock the boat series were then, I don't think that was the case in the 60's. Most fathers were probably extremely clean.

I think the only thing that could stay is the one talking about how they showed affection to each other frequently, as I remember reading how that was kind of subversive, as this was the time that not even married couples were shown sleeping together.

I added this VD example to Adventures in Odyssey yesterday.

• "Choices" featured Lucy unable to write a school report on evolution due to it contradicting her Christian beliefs. Come another three decades, and scientific evidence widely supports evolution as fact, to the point where most Christians have accepted it as compatible with their beliefs, and creationism is generally seen a fringe belief that isn't taken too seriously anymore.

I added this example since I'm sure creationism isn't as taken seriously today as it was back in 1989 when the episode was made, before learning that Focus on the Family (the creator of AIO) still promotes creationism three decades later. However, they also promote other beliefs that we consider outdated today (which we won't go into here), so it makes me conflicted over whether this is a valid example or not.

Any thoughts here?

I’m gonna put some Gloom in your eye.

Cut. First of all, people took stalkers seriously in the 1990s.

Second of all, the whole point of Yukako was to show that perfectionism of women (particularly with the moe stereotype) was a problem all its own. Further, Yukako grows and changes as a person and only then is her love returned. That's what makes her a good character-she's not a cliche anime love interest, but she's also not a typical two-dimensional yandere either.

If anything, Yukako is Values Resonance in the fact that with introspection and self-motivation, people can grow behind their obsessive, idealized view of others and come to see them for who they truly are and treat them as people, not objects of desire (she respects Kocihi's privacy and feelings later). That's a rare idea even to this day, but an important one, because the alternative is "crazies gonna crazy, and there's no hope for them."

Edited by ArthurEld on Jun 22nd 2022 at 5:46:21 AM

I think the problem is that, while these days Christians accept evolution more, the ones who don't are still extremely loud, so an example that says "Christians now widely accept evolution" feels weird even if it's technically true

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

I could edit the example to say something like "most Christians (outside of a Vocal Minority) have accepted it as compatible with their beliefs".

It's one of those things where the people who still refuse to accept science are always going to reject science. I'm not sure how things changed in three decades, so IDK how much of it is a vocal minority always being vocal, and how much of it is a legitimate change.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

The scientific evidence for evolution has been known for a lot longer than three decades.

This exactly.

Also, even in 1989, the majority of Christians accepted evolution and it was just the really loud, really annoying ones who didn't.

Ukrainian Red Cross

Have Space Suit Will Travel

The above mentioned Dexidrine that helps Kip jog forty miles across the Lunar surface? It's mentioned that Kip asked a doctor to write prescriptions for Dexedrine and other drugs so Kip can legally make his hobby space suit just like the real thing. And the pharmacist fills the prescriptions. A modern doctor and pharmacist caught doing that would lose their licenses and face jail time. 1, the dexidrine is not actually mentioned earlier on the page. 2, was this a common thing even back then?

It is also mentioned that Kip uses his home chemistry lab to make explosives, For Science! When he accidentally sets fire to the barn, his father just warns him to be more careful. While it is understandable that his father couldn't care less about what society thought, there is no feeling that he needs to keep this secret from the authorities. Of course, in modern times he would be branded a terrorist, or at least get a stern talking-to.

Turns out Kip's mom was his dad's smartest student. It's not specified if she was his student when they started the relationship, but even if she wasn't, and it took place in the modern day, a bright young man like Kip would have some concerns about professional ethics until he was assured otherwise. Our Kip is only mildly surprised. But then, he can see for himself that his parents have a healthy marriage; the concern with professors dating their students is that it often produces unhealthy relationships. Nattery.

How many of these are values?

Edited by Hellboy33 on Jun 25th 2022 at 5:52:47 AM

• Columbo: In one episode, the title character, in using deductive reasoning to re-enact the scene of a crime, describes the socially acceptable way for a man to hit a woman: he doesn't punch her the way he would a man, he just slaps her across the face.

Doesn't explain how it fits the trope, and last I checked, it's still socially unacceptable to hit a woman in many cases. Thoughts?

pee pee poo poo

Yeah, that's... weird.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

That's also a run on sentence.

I think I can see where the example is going to. I don't know Columbo or the values of that time in the United States, but I know that in the not so distant past, a man was not supposed to be hitting his wife TOO much. So he is analyzing how a man should be hitting his wife properly, which is seen as horrible today as the idea that there is a "proper" way to hit a sounds incredible despicable.