Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

So am I all good to cut it? Just wanna be sure I'm not jumping the gun or misunderstanding something

Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Jul 2nd 2023 at 6:23:36 AM

We may want to wait for other voices, but I agree with a cut.

It might be a case of "depending on the production" how much she was coerced. Some princess may act pushier than others. But the fact it's so up for interpretation means it probably isn't clear cut Values Dissonance, and the prince is meant to be a skeeze anyway.

Maybe this could be a form of Common Knowledge if popular enough?

I mean, I'm fairly active in following theatre news, and I've never seen anyone ever describe the Baker's Wife/Prince as anything but cheating before - like I said, it's not something that can be varied on production, the mutual attraction is built into the script.

I don't think the entry is denying that it's cheating, but that Baker's Wife is more sympathetic because there's a power imbalance? Which is debatable.

It's saying that there's "less wrongdoing" because the wife couldn't have backed out, but that's just sort of a weird thing to discuss when in the context of the play she was very eager to be with the prince and would have consented regardless. It's hard to say that she's not in the wrong because there's no reason to believe that this power imbalance would have ever come into play. It's sort of just analyzing something that never happened and was never going to happen. It's a deconstructive faerie tale world where the prince is a playboy scumbag, but that's all he is.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 2nd 2023 at 8:58:56 AM

I think we have more reason to believe it was all consensual than anything else, so yeah, I said you can cut it.

This is on Indiana Jones:

Values Dissonance: Whether the series is a horrific affront to the field of archaeology or not gets debated by the experts themselves. Ultimately, they generally conclude that while Indy isn't exactly great as an archaeologist, the films shouldn't exactly be faulted for being inaccurate, considering the perception of the field has changed greatly since the film came out. In any case, given how many of them now wear wide-brimmed fedoras, the character at least, is beloved by real archaeologists.

This seems more like Broken Base, at least as written.

Edited by fragglelover on Jul 3rd 2023 at 10:09:12 AM

There seems to be consensus at the ITW entry is misuse, so I'm gonna go ahead and cut it. Thanks all!

You can just cut it. I don't think we're supposed to take Indiana Jones which features tons of mystical stuff as akin to modern archeology....

Plus as noted. A lot of modern archeologists and paleontologists use this get up because they liked it so...

Yeah, the Indiana Jones example sounds more appropriate for Broken Base. A work taking an artistic license when depicting a profession and people from that field having different opinions about it sounds like Broken Base, not Values Dissonance.

This is the section that would be the basis of a valid entry if it were expanded on. (I assume it's talking about things like Indy's complete disregard for anything but the shiniest artefact in the ruins, an attitude that the field has been growing away from since the Victorian era, and modern archaeology's increased connection to anthropology and efforts to preserve sites in the context of the people who live around them now.)

Edited by Noaqiyeum on Jul 5th 2023 at 7:56:55 PM

That doesn't seem to be about values.

"Indy's habits as an archeologist exemplify once-common practices in the field that are now increasingly looked down upon by modern scholars" definitely feels like a case of changing sociocultural values to me.

Yeah, seems like Science Marches On or Dated History. Maybe Deliberate Values Dissonance since the Indy movies don't take place in the present.

Edited by PhiSat on Jul 6th 2023 at 2:12:44 AM

I feel like noting that this is on Raiders of the Lost Ark under Values Disonance:

• The movie thinks nothing of Indy going to a foreign country filled with indigenous inhabitants and obtaining a historical relic to be taken back to be exhibited in a Western museum. Again, accurate for the time period and not especially controversial even at the time of filming. But the topic of colonial artifact restitution has now become a hotly debated one in the field of archeology. A case could conceivably be made that the Hovitos were within their rights to defend the theft of their idol. Indeed, George Lucas has actually stated he assumed this would be obvious.

Given that this seems to be similar to what we've been discussing her, should it (or at least a rewritten version) be moved to the franchise's main YMMV page?

That one seems like Deliberate Values Dissonance. I think even in the 80s opinions were shifting about taking cultural artifacts without examining a whole site and what it could say about the people who lived in it.

Edited by PhiSat on Jul 7th 2023 at 11:26:23 AM

I'm not too sure on how that was viewed in the 1980s, though Lucas' statement gives me the impression it might be Deliberate Values Dissonance.

Oh definitely Deliberate Values Dissonance.

This was just added to YMMV.Sponge Bob Square Pants S 2 E 6 Grandmas Kisses Squidville.

• Values Dissonance: While the concept of Squidville was comedic during this episode’s time of release, it is blatantly disturbing to see institutional racism be used cause its a serious subject today.

This feels like a HUGE stretch to me. Anyone else?

I agree. Cut.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Jul 10th 2023 at 5:44:06 AM

I just did.

I dont even get what's trying to say...

I guess it's saying Squidsville is racist because it only allows squids, but that's more "speciesist" than anything and it's just meant to be seen as a stuffy, gated community.

Yeah, "Squidville" is meant to represent milquetoast suburbia. The episode does touch on the enforced exclusivity of that setting, but it's an absurdly hilarious reach to go from that to 'this episode is making light of institutional racism'.