Rick and Morty

[BARGUILD]

I got to be honest, I truly am taken aback at the stuff being thrown around in here. I really am. People are having a debate and yet within that debate, people are trying to take vastly different sides to vastly different ideas that have next to no relation to the topic. I think so far, two people have understood or shown to understand what I said (one of them being prior to me saying anything, I just offered support).

So let me sum up my thoughts so people see where I am coming from and explain what the debate was actually about. (Also before I carry on, I enjoy having debates and do not do them for attacking purposes. I am genuinely interested in the thinking behind people).

Why is your argument nonsensical?

Your first statement was that media is media and you can enjoy it or not. Fair enough. Never once argued the side of enjoyment. I distaste a lot of music. Distaste a lot of film. Distaste a lot of prose. So fine. But then you next statement is that things don't and shouldn't get deeper. Why? The reason we consume media has nothing to do with the simple definition of the word escape. It has to do with understanding and relationships with the media. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant because that is a true statement. There is a reason why you like X and Y, and stating that it is to escape is but a tiny piece of the puzzle. Simple as that.

Then you said it doesn't mean it should have 4 different layers to it. Again, I ask why? Even works of art written by artists WHO SPECIFICALLY TRY TO SKIRT THE WHOLE IDEA OF PROVIDING MEANING are ironically PROVIDING MEANING AND A COMMENTARY ON THE STATE OF MEDIA. That is the irony. And once again, why is it that the author may not make 4 different layers? You may not see those 4 layers or agree with them, but it does not mean they do not exist or don't meaning anything.

Then you brought up Shakespeare. Somebody already dealt with it earlier but I will deal with it again. Sorry what? Had he used normal English? Um, he did? Not poetic prose? Um, he didn't? There literally wouldn't be a single note-worthy thing about them? Um, his works are studied because of the relevance of his work. It is in a small group of works that find relevance regardless of time and place and context. That is why he is studied. Although there is inherently cultural bias in studying just Shakespeare (which is unfair and is being changed), there is good value to studying him. Also, as a side note as it seems your statement was a bit ambiguous. LotF was not written by Shakespeare. And even that has good literary value. It deals with a very very sensitive topic of human nature in a very clever way. A deeper meaning that (whilst you say it shouldn't get deeper) it gets into.

Then you say nothing to be noted or taught for generations to be come. What might you teach and study for generations to come? Maths? Science? Business? If I used your logic then I would be questioning whether those are valuable for teaching generations to come. Which they most certainly are. One doesn't stand above another. They all provide value to a mind that is primarily used for knowledge. Unfortunately that is how the human mind works. Ah well.

Your argument about not saying it causes suicides but suggesting you don't need it to be negative and reinforce negativity. Again, why? Then you say why our media which, "is supposed to let us escape a rotten life and have some fun away from it". Again, why? The media industry doesn't have a drive (except big media obviously). An author or poet or musician or story does not grow because it is fun or escaping. Honestly, go argue with the loads of authors or poets who were depressed beyond anything and tried to convey it. Look at Blakes Songs of Innocence and Experience for an idea of how meaning can be derived from good and bad, fairly. Artists grow because they are related to and understood and people find meaning within their work. Even if backed by big media, fans will most often refer to meaning and how one relates.

Also why that area was nonsensical is that if you have issue with it, it is because you chose to watch it. It never forced you to experience the negative side of life. You chose to look into that. Blaming it is entirely illogical.

Next point. Why is it lame? You may be able to make sense of the issues at hand without a stupid catchphrase to make it so, but that doesn't mean someone else can't. That doesn't mean it doesn't add a different way to look at the character. Of course it does. What happened in this specific case is actually quite an interesting point with regards to the comedy genre as a whole. It quite fairly comments on how comedy is not what it seems at the face of it. A funny, stupid catchphrase that hides something worse. See Robin Williams, Tony Hancock, Ray Koenig. And one could extend this understanding further to other media areas. Think recent Chester, or Cobain, or Winehouse. It is a very deep and clever comment that on the face of it is meaningless but holds a huge meaning.

Oh and finally, your insult to my intelligence. Thanks for that.


Then, to the guy who commented about existentialism and then referred to the bunch of philosophers. Also, I hadn't noticed that piece of dialogue. Thank you. I really enjoyed it :0

Then to everyone else wondering why the debate. Having a discussion about something seemingly nonsensical (RaM) proves its deeper value. It has already been thought provoking in these 9 pages. That is the massive irony in people arguing. It has caused them to do exactly what you say it doesn't. If it truly meant nothing, you would shrug it off. Interesting eh?

Here is a piece of trivia about the show for anyone who cares and shows the ability for someone to relate and find meaning. My cousin is autistic. He is also mute. He is Russian and when he was 3 or 4 years old was attacked in the complex he use to live in because of his accent. It was most certainly xenophobic. It was then that caused his mutism. Don't think he has spoken openly in 15 years or so. Easily. After one of the last episodes when Rick made a comment regarding autism, can't remember where but it is there. He told his mother (who is the only person he speaks to by the way, and in Russian) that he didn't know Rick was autistic and that it was cool that somebody could still appreciate life like that. I found that comment very interesting because up until recently I hadn't seen how Rick appreciated life. He seemed to hate it all but after some thought it seems he does appreciate life. He has simply grown to see the futility of it all and seems to prefer the experiences that allow for appreciation and fun and change. Which is what seems to drive him.



TLDR

Read it if you want, don't read it if you don't want. Don't mind.

 

[noa]

:applouse:

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

Damn that's a lot. Ok let's get going.

I have no clue reading what I said took you so far away from the show and what I originally saide but oh well.

Your first statement was that media is media and you can enjoy it or not. Fair enough. Never once argued the side of enjoyment. I distaste a lot of music. Distaste a lot of film. Distaste a lot of prose. So fine. But then you next statement is that things don't and shouldn't get deeper. Why? The reason we consume media has nothing to do with the simple definition of the word escape. It has to do with understanding and relationships with the media. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant because that is a true statement. There is a reason why you like X and Y, and stating that it is to escape is but a tiny piece of the puzzle. Simple as that.

You distaste? pretty sure there's no such word.
No, (fictional) media is literally all escape. It's taking you from your situation and placing you in another different to our own be it braindead slapstick, something dramatic or something a bit more intellectual. Regardless of how deep you say it is it's first escape any deeper analysis comes after. If it were your own, if weren't somewhere else, it would be your real life, but it's not, it's someone else's life be that Tom or Jerry, or Harry Potter or House.
But that's not talking about enjoyment level, rather it's "depth" so don't go mixing them up.

Then you said it doesn't mean it should have 4 different layers to it. Again, I ask why? Even works of art written by artists WHO SPECIFICALLY TRY TO SKIRT THE WHOLE IDEA OF PROVIDING MEANING are ironically PROVIDING MEANING AND A COMMENTARY ON THE STATE OF MEDIA. That is the irony. And once again, why is it that the author may not make 4 different layers? You may not see those 4 layers or agree with them, but it does not mean they do not exist or don't meaning anything.

Why shouldn't it? Because tell me, how many of those deeper meanings one can try to look for are positive and how many are negative and downright tragic? We don't need more of that crap, keep it simple or keep it happy, don't make the world cry with you.
Every time I enjoy something simply, and then someone points out oh it's social commentary or veiled racism/anti-racism it destroys everything. It turns a cool story into some asshole trying to inflict his opinion on me. Just tell a cool story, get lost with your messages.

Then you brought up Shakespeare. Somebody already dealt with it earlier but I will deal with it again. Sorry what? Had he used normal English? Um, he did? Not poetic prose? Um, he didn't? There literally wouldn't be a single note-worthy thing about them? Um, his works are studied because of the relevance of his work. It is in a small group of works that find relevance regardless of time and place and context. That is why he is studied. Although there is inherently cultural bias in studying just Shakespeare (which is unfair and is being changed), there is good value to studying him. Also, as a side note as it seems your statement was a bit ambiguous. LotF was not written by Shakespeare. And even that has good literary value. It deals with a very very sensitive topic of human nature in a very clever way. A deeper meaning that (whilst you say it shouldn't get deeper) it gets into.

YOU brought up Shakespeare, I merely pointed out I think it's also overrated trash. Although clearly my teacher fed me some bull but I at least got the 80s I needed at the time.
But what relevance? Shit would have gone down much differently in a more technological world. Julius Caesar I'll give ya cuz that's more history than fiction, but not the others. It's as relevant as a telegraph machine.

And yes, I know Shaky Spear didn't write LotF. I merely chucked that out there cuz it's another much lauded pile of trash. I refuse to believe society breaks down that quickly or completely even if they are retard kids that deserve a bullet through the noggin.
Have you watched the anime, Mugen no Ryvius? Same idea, MUCH better execution. If you wanna teach someone teach that. Even has the same amount of relevance to English language/grammar.
But hey, I'm just sore cuz I am law and order, I am calm and control, I am Piggy. Ironically one of things I hated most and would expunge from the world if I could also turns out to be the only sort of "relatable" thing we ever covered in English. Still don't know 2 hoots how reading all that old stale crap is supposed to make me better at it though.

Then you say nothing to be noted or taught for generations to be come. What might you teach and study for generations to come? Maths? Science? Business? If I used your logic then I would be questioning whether those are valuable for teaching generations to come. Which they most certainly are. One doesn't stand above another. They all provide value to a mind that is primarily used for knowledge. Unfortunately that is how the human mind works. Ah well.

I was talking about Rick and Morty. It might be a sciency show but it's very different from the subject. Why are those things useful? Because they provide us with necessary insight into a small part of the laws of the universe (or a larger part depending on what we study) or our ways of creating and maintaining order. Rick and Morty on the other hand is as deep as a brick and has no business being mentioned in the same sentence even if the other stuff is mostly crap too.

Your argument about not saying it causes suicides but suggesting you don't need it to be negative and reinforce negativity. Again, why? Then you say why our media which, "is supposed to let us escape a rotten life and have some fun away from it". Again, why? The media industry doesn't have a drive (except big media obviously). An author or poet or musician or story does not grow because it is fun or escaping. Honestly, go argue with the loads of authors or poets who were depressed beyond anything and tried to convey it. Look at Blakes Songs of Innocence and Experience for an idea of how meaning can be derived from good and bad, fairly. Artists grow because they are related to and understood and people find meaning within their work. Even if backed by big media, fans will most often refer to meaning and how one relates.

Because again, look at the balance. Those scales aren't favourable if you choose to tear everything down and not stay on the top layer (if it has more layers). Negativity, negativity and more negativity. I say: ENOUGH! Be positive or be simple or stfu.

Also why that area was nonsensical is that if you have issue with it, it is because you chose to watch it. It never forced you to experience the negative side of life. You chose to look into that. Blaming it is entirely illogical.

No. I don't have an issue with the show. I have an issue with people trying to reveal it's rotten core to innocents. You know how that show would make one feel if one took everything to heart? Like Jerry for most of Season 3, possibly worse. Not saying I feel like that, I'm MUCH stronger than that, but if that's all that's under the surface....why bother?
I think it's daft, but similar to the likes of South Park, Family Guy, Simpsons, Drawn Together and whole bunch I don't know it occasionally offers a unique brand of humour that's somewhat cool amongst all the crude crap and the darkness. I still like Meseeks and that Uncertainty bit.

Next point. Why is it lame? You may be able to make sense of the issues at hand without a stupid catchphrase to make it so, but that doesn't mean someone else can't. That doesn't mean it doesn't add a different way to look at the character. Of course it does. What happened in this specific case is actually quite an interesting point with regards to the comedy genre as a whole. It quite fairly comments on how comedy is not what it seems at the face of it. A funny, stupid catchphrase that hides something worse. See Robin Williams, Tony Hancock, Ray Koenig. And one could extend this understanding further to other media areas. Think recent Chester, or Cobain, or Winehouse. It is a very deep and clever comment that on the face of it is meaningless but holds a huge meaning.

Wait....

Wait..

No seriously? Did you just list a bunch of recent suicides preceded by "hidden" messages about the artist's unhappiness after telling me there's no link in all this negativity? Haha. Hahahahaha. That's rich. That's pure irony right there.

And don't delude yourself, it was originally just it's face value, a random 4th wall-break. Only later did it grow into something that might define how the character was feeling. And then it was accompanied by that awful 2nd phrase that proves how made up it all is.

Oh and finally, your insult to my intelligence. Thanks for that.

Haven't you learned yet? Don't read too much into things, it was a simple jab, nothing more. I take my shots when I can cuz I sure get a fair share heading in my direction (not necessarily from the same people but oh well).
I don't think you're stupid by any means. You made some pretty extra-ordinary leaps there though from my side of things to lose me completely. Were probably reading too much into it

Then to everyone else wondering why the debate. Having a discussion about something seemingly nonsensical (RaM) proves its deeper value. It has already been thought provoking in these 9 pages. That is the massive irony in people arguing. It has caused them to do exactly what you say it doesn't. If it truly meant nothing, you would shrug it off. Interesting eh?

I guess I just like a good debate now and then. But I refuse to shrug it off because I would like to preserve people's innocence, not everyone needs to see the rotten core. Keep enjoying what's there to enjoy and skip the rest. Yes, the show has messages, IF you choose to look, but none of them are any good.

Here is a piece of trivia about the show for anyone who cares and shows the ability for someone to relate and find meaning. My cousin is autistic. He is also mute. He is Russian and when he was 3 or 4 years old was attacked in the complex he use to live in because of his accent. It was most certainly xenophobic. It was then that caused his mutism. Don't think he has spoken openly in 15 years or so. Easily. After one of the last episodes when Rick made a comment regarding autism, can't remember where but it is there. He told his mother (who is the only person he speaks to by the way, and in Russian) that he didn't know Rick was autistic and that it was cool that somebody could still appreciate life like that. I found that comment very interesting because up until recently I hadn't seen how Rick appreciated life. He seemed to hate it all but after some thought it seems he does appreciate life. He has simply grown to see the futility of it all and seems to prefer the experiences that allow for appreciation and fun and change. Which is what seems to drive him.

Rick's not autistic regardless of what he says. He's psychotic.
And you needed an autistic kid to show you that? He literally says it in earlier episodes.

But hey, I can go deeper. What if that fake death scene at Shony's was real (or however you spell it) and only what followed was made up? What if the reason why Rick likes going on all the portal adventures (or maybe I should say liked...he doesn't use it much anymore) is because he needs to ascribe reason to the portals and the resultant death? He can't accept the portals taking that from him and giving nothing in return so in place of the normal experiences he would have had and appreciated so much more he now needs to fill his life with constant new stimuli in order to keep going and not self-destruct.





Sorry for all the typos that are inevitably in this WoT.

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

2) Rick and Morty has a deeper meaning, permitting you dabble in philosophy, more specifically Existentialism and Existential crisis. Philosophers like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre etc comes to mind. Morty says in the one episode:

"Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV."

which is a direct relation to the Sartre quote: "Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance."

Pretty much the exact crisis the movie Fight Club is about.

K so the group word for that stuff is Nihilism isn't it? It's plain as day that the show is nihilistic, I don't need a derived quote to prove that to me.

So to you I pose the same question as Barguild: Why is this important? Why should this be promoted?

Living is all about either hoping tomorrow will be better or trying to make it so. So how is it good for someone to tell me I'm not a special potato? How does that help me make tomorrow better or hope that tomorrow will be better? How does that give me drive to keep going? I don't have a portal gun to go on cool futuristic adventures with almost no consequence where every day is a new different experience and seeing what the next is keeps me going.
So why feed me the negativity?

Wouldn't it better for people to just enjoy the bits and the pop culture references they can place and to skip the nihilistic crap? Or skip the show alltogether if they don't enjoy it? Why show them the rotten core?

 

[BARGUILD]

Distaste- mild dislike, aversion.

Your comment on escape is fair. Escape is most certainly an important aspect but the ability of something to relate to us or cause us to question that relationship is an extremely important aspect of any consumable.

Splitting enjoyment level and depth are also quite difficult to do completely. They are entwined. Your enjoyment comes from your perception of something and that perception is directly related to your understanding of it. Regardless of its depth.

Negative or positive is irrelevant. Completely. One of your initial statements to the original poster that caused the discussion piece involved the following line..."It doesn't get any deeper than that and it shouldn't." But now you completely accept that it is quite a deep show, it just might not be to your liking. Which is fair, but brushing it off and saying nobody needs it or it isn't useful or of value is not fair.

Directly related to that is something I have learnt and I think it is something a lot of people everywhere can take note of. In teaching I have learnt that the way we are educating people today is causing massive problems with the ability for society to deal with things. Saying the world does not need negativity and should keep it happy and simple is what causes a lesser education. It causes a dumber down system where a learner should always be told they are doing the right thing no matter what. Plain and simple. That is an issue. Negative and positive. Those are the components of a healthy and understandable mind and world. Will bring it up again, William Blake explores this in great depth in his Songs of Innocence and Experience. Sorry for the tangent. Much deeper issue to deal with really.

Just also want to deal with the whole "some asshole trying to inflict his opinion on me" part. It is inherently the work of the artist. That makes it immediate that the artist is trying to pass out their views. Which is fair and fine. Because somebody else pointed it out doesn't make it wrong. Also, an important area in literary analysis. Something can change. Meaning can change. Again, humans create meaning on their own by using things around them. If you find such and such meaning with X and someone finds Y. That does not make yours wrong OR Ys. They are both correct for your own instance. Brushing it off again is not fair. But also, opinions in art are important but I do sometimes take issue, but only when it is contextually irrelevant. Something I took issue with in ST Disocvery but Sal pointed out I may have been wrong their so fair. Tangent again, sorry.

I may have brought up Shakespeare initially, that reference was simply pointing out where I was in your post. But you say some interesting things. You say things would have gone down vastly differently in a more technological world? Star Wars technological enough? It is a closely veiled copy (or at least the overarching story is) of Macbeth. As is a MASSIVE MAJORITY of the media we consume today. (Obviously not only Macbeth, referring to most of his works) So yes, his work was and still is extremely relevant. Which is why it is studied. The specific reason behind why it is studied at schools (English schools more specifically because again inherent bias) is that it promotes extreme analysis. Which might not be to some peoples liking in school but is an extremely important skill to have. Reason behind why a lot of teachers and some universities are trying to make history compulsory.

Towards your LotF comment. Because you refuse to believe it true does not make the thought by the author a viable attempt at a deeper discussion. Regarding your reference to the anime. I think that is a completely fair point. Unfortunately that comes down to inherent cultural bias. It is something a lot of people (and I have seen it on here) don't tend to understand when it comes to education. It refers to the use of a singular explanation or cultural understanding of something which promotes a singular notion of something. What that means in this case is LotF does X, Mugen no Ryvius does X, but only LotF is credited because LotF suits the cultural bias. Its the argument being towards the decolonization of education although the media and some people promoting it seem to be unable to push a good argument. The basic argument is at school you learnt Newton did X. But the Chinese might have also found X and maybe also the Egyptians or Turks. Because you learnt X from Newton you now have a cultural bias towards Newton (ie European). At school you should be taught X with reference to all who considered it. Not the other way round. But again, argument for another day. Interesting topic though.

As for your Rick and Morty comment and the subject issue. I think that is mostly a fair opinion although I would add that I again think RaM still adds to a deeper understanding of society. Whether you are a fan or not. Not saying go out and study RaM and replace the actual subjects. Simply pointing out that they do hold deeper, valuable insight.

Again, an opinion piece. Fine, don't enjoy the negative side of it. But it still provides a deeper understanding that allows for valuable insight. It still means it has further levels and ways to look at it.

Bothering about whats under the surface. Because, at least in RaM, under the surface is a specific type of understanding the world. As was pointed out by the chap who posted about the philosophers. The reason to contemplate it is because it adds to our understanding. Contemplating things is what humans do. It is what allowed us to advance to the point in history that we are right now.

Then the comment about me linking the artists and the messages. You seemed to have completely missed the point of that. There is absolutely bugger all link between the negativity just by the way. One can be extremely negative and not be depressed and suicidal. One can be around ONLY POSITIVE THINGS and still be depressed and suicidal. It is a mental condition. Very very important distinction when it comes to media. Someone shooting up a school is not because of negative influence of Slipknot. It is because of a mental issue.
The reason I linked the artists was to SHOW the deeper meaning the show had with regards to its comment on the state of the industry. That is all. Also, I am not deluding myself at all. If it happened now, does not mean the influence of something later on was not pondered. The timeline is controlled by the artist, not you. GoT is a good, current example of this. Saying it is just face value completely removes many factors that are present.

Meh, thanks for acknowledging the intelligence thing. Probably took it to heart and shouldn't have. No hard feelings. Also, good debates I agree with. Not refusing to shrug something off. I have great great respect for that. Read something a while ago. Think Christopher Hitchens said it maybe? He would rather have a discussion with a devout Christian (he was hectic athiest by the way) than a fly by night because then at least he was talking to somebody honest, regardless of belief. Debates are important.

Whilst the line does not say outright that Rick is autistic it does provide an implication (which again is not positive proof but if you take your meaning as one then that is fine because humans create their own meaning).
I clearly had not taken notice. It is blatantly obvious that Rick has severe issues and hates basically everything but himself, I simple had not yet drawn the line towards optimistic nihilism yet. Ah well.

I like the last paragraph quite a lot. That is meaning you made. All I am saying is that the meaning is valuable. There is value with it. It is not simple brick deep garbage. Whether you like the show or not is not cause for removing value.

 

[BARGUILD]

K so the group word for that stuff is Nihilism isn't it? It's plain as day that the show is nihilistic, I don't need a derived quote to prove that to me.

So to you I pose the same question as Barguild: Why is this important? Why should this be promoted?

Living is all about either hoping tomorrow will be better or trying to make it so. So how is it good for someone to tell me I'm not a special potato? How does that help me make tomorrow better or hope that tomorrow will be better? How does that give me drive to keep going? I don't have a portal gun to go on cool futuristic adventures with almost no consequence where every day is a new different experience and seeing what the next is keeps me going.
So why feed me the negativity?

Wouldn't it better for people to just enjoy the bits and the pop culture references they can place and to skip the nihilistic crap? Or skip the show alltogether if they don't enjoy it? Why show them the rotten core?

Also, just want to point one thing out. Your meaning for living is "all about either hoping tomorrow will be better or trying to make it so". Whilst I might enjoy and agree with a statement, it does not make it true for all of life or everyone and anyone who holds a belief.

Yes nihilism is it. I actually didn't see that post but I did point it out in my long post above but I added something to it that might explain the question you pose to me here. Optimistic nihilism is the understanding and ACCEPTANCE of all the negativity and bullshit. It is the acknowledgement of the fact that you were born to die, the universe is massive, and you are insignificant to it. BUT it also shows the side of optimism in that you ACCEPT IT and realise that it does not define who you are. If you do something bad or negative then it allows you to see that what you did is largely negative and you should find the positive side. What you did sucked but meh, it is insignificant and worthless so why don't you do something fun? Why don't you say sorry and move on. There is no positive without negative. The word happy was invented to express something when somebody wasn't sad. As was the word sad.

I think that is my answer then. There is value. I also fully understand not everyone is an optimistic nihilist. But it doesn't mean it isn't valuable for understanding.

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

Holy frog farts, a least quote me, man!

Distaste- mild dislike, aversion.

Eh, ok. Still don't believe you used it correctly though, using dislike would have made more sense than the more contextual distaste.

Your comment on escape is fair. Escape is most certainly an important aspect but the ability of something to relate to us or cause us to question that relationship is an extremely important aspect of any consumable.

I still find that hard to believe because I relate to almost no one in the media I've consumed. There are people better than me, there are people a fuckton worse, but there's no one like me. I can only understand them by context VS societal norms or the laws of their universe. However whichever one they are doesn't change much about how much I enjoy the media if everything else is on point.

Splitting enjoyment level and depth are also quite difficult to do completely. They are entwined. Your enjoyment comes from your perception of something and that perception is directly related to your understanding of it. Regardless of its depth.

Maybe I should have said rather that I don't believe that revealing negative depth in something can improve enjoyment levels.

Negative or positive is irrelevant. Completely. One of your initial statements to the original poster that caused the discussion piece involved the following line..."It doesn't get any deeper than that and it shouldn't." But now you completely accept that it is quite a deep show, it just might not be to your liking. Which is fair, but brushing it off and saying nobody needs it or it isn't useful or of value is not fair.

How is it not relevant? How is adding something dark to my life good?
What I should have probably explained at the time is that I don't consider something like the show's nihilism to be depth because it is not worth uncovering. It's unnecessary darkness.
And it's not deep. It's right there on the surface being flung in people's faces again and again and again.
Skip that, enjoy the gags or move on.

Depth worth uncovering are hidden Easter eggs (IE references to other stuff that isn't an in your face bit), the twists and turns of a whodunnit and anything that perfectly skirts a moral line for instance something that makes on contemplate whether the law and justice were on the same side.

Directly related to that is something I have learnt and I think it is something a lot of people everywhere can take note of. In teaching I have learnt that the way we are educating people today is causing massive problems with the ability for society to deal with things. Saying the world does not need negativity and should keep it happy and simple is what causes a lesser education. It causes a dumber down system where a learner should always be told they are doing the right thing no matter what. Plain and simple. That is an issue. Negative and positive. Those are the components of a healthy and understandable mind and world. Will bring it up again, William Blake explores this in great depth in his Songs of Innocence and Experience. Sorry for the tangent. Much deeper issue to deal with really.

Life is generally negative enough without our media having to add to it. What we need is neutrality, what we need in education is constructive commentary.
When I say positivity I don't mean fake reinforce people but show them success, show them acquiring happiness, show them overcoming adversity. Let them find building blocks, don't break them down, don't darken their lives.

As an aside it might interest you know that I drew shit as a kid. I mean almost every kid does but my stuff was so sub-par my Grade 1 teacher raised concerns about my drawing ability. And of course my parents all dutiful always applauded what I did and I absolutely hated that false praise. It would have been wrong for them to tear me down of course at that stage of life but I think in retrospect I would have preferred pointers on how to draw better.
Can't really tell you why I drew shit. Back then art wasn't something I enjoyed (I didn't enjoy it at the end either, but in the middle I did) and I think I might have had an OCD thing about using all my colouring pencils the same amount so I was combining nonsense colour combinations and using completely unrealistic colours just to fulfill that rule and I was doing the stuff in the first place based on orders rather than a desire to do it or understanding of what was expected.
Of course later when I improved and was doing my best and was actually proud of what I did and started enjoying it I liked the praise, but back then...ugh.

Just also want to deal with the whole "some asshole trying to inflict his opinion on me" part. It is inherently the work of the artist. That makes it immediate that the artist is trying to pass out their views. Which is fair and fine. Because somebody else pointed it out doesn't make it wrong. Also, an important area in literary analysis. Something can change. Meaning can change. Again, humans create meaning on their own by using things around them. If you find such and such meaning with X and someone finds Y. That does not make yours wrong OR Ys. They are both correct for your own instance. Brushing it off again is not fair. But also, opinions in art are important but I do sometimes take issue, but only when it is contextually irrelevant. Something I took issue with in ST Disocvery but Sal pointed out I may have been wrong their so fair. Tangent again, sorry.

I differentiate "their views" between the political/social and whatever fantasy world they create for me. If they are showing me something they made up it's not the same as trying to show me some sort of specific rhetoric.
I disagree about X and Y though, only the original creator's view is correct. Anything else is supposition that is debunked as soon as one knows the original motivation unless one can somehow forget.
ONLY if the original motivation is not known can both X and Y have equal standing if they in turn are both properly motivated.

I may have brought up Shakespeare initially, that reference was simply pointing out where I was in your post. But you say some interesting things. You say things would have gone down vastly differently in a more technological world? Star Wars technological enough? It is a closely veiled copy (or at least the overarching story is) of Macbeth. As is a MASSIVE MAJORITY of the media we consume today. (Obviously not only Macbeth, referring to most of his works) So yes, his work was and still is extremely relevant. Which is why it is studied. The specific reason behind why it is studied at schools (English schools more specifically because again inherent bias) is that it promotes extreme analysis. Which might not be to some peoples liking in school but is an extremely important skill to have. Reason behind why a lot of teachers and some universities are trying to make history compulsory.

IF that is true. THEN that would only mean that Macbeth itself is not the original so still false praise. I recently heard a theory somewhere that all stories more or less conform to 7 archetypes and it would fall into that category, or merely being an old English representation of one of those archetypes. Nothing noteworthy in that, the overall archetype might bear study but not this specific example.

But hmm, analysis you say? Hadn't thought of that. It most certainly did that as my literary essays where basically copy pastes of the techniques I was using for my history essays and got me easy A's providing I could find a viewpoint I thought I could argue well.
I suppose if both history and literary essays were to go then that would represent a significant gap in someone's abilities to motivate things.
Still then though, skip Mr Shaky Spear and switch me over to actual history after Grade 9.

Towards your LotF comment. Because you refuse to believe it true does not make the thought by the author a viable attempt at a deeper discussion. Regarding your reference to the anime. I think that is a completely fair point. Unfortunately that comes down to inherent cultural bias. It is something a lot of people (and I have seen it on here) don't tend to understand when it comes to education. It refers to the use of a singular explanation or cultural understanding of something which promotes a singular notion of something. What that means in this case is LotF does X, Mugen no Ryvius does X, but only LotF is credited because LotF suits the cultural bias. Its the argument being towards the decolonization of education although the media and some people promoting it seem to be unable to push a good argument. The basic argument is at school you learnt Newton did X. But the Chinese might have also found X and maybe also the Egyptians or Turks. Because you learnt X from Newton you now have a cultural bias towards Newton (ie European). At school you should be taught X with reference to all who considered it. Not the other way round. But again, argument for another day. Interesting topic though.

Anarchy is not something that should be discussed, it should be hidden. Law and order should be maintained. Maybe I should also mention that I consider that what happened to Ralph and the gang in that book a crime against nature even if they are just made up characters. He should have made his point with teens or tweens. I would quite literally like all copies of the book burned, the author too if he's still alive, crystal night that shit.
I mention Mugen no Ryvius not because it's the same in a different context but because it's better, raise the same questions and yet is more positive. The breakdown of society is counter-balanced by the need to survive on limited resource. On that island stuff broke down cuz they were moronic kids one second and cavemen the next, there was no reason, it was just cuz they were too damn stupid.

I disagree that everyone considering the concept needs to be mentioned. That's too much clutter in a time where your brain needs to take tons of stuff in. Heck not even the person credited with being first needs to be mentioned actually, just whatever they discovered, but the name acts as proof for the discovery and gives us something to hang it on.

As for your Rick and Morty comment and the subject issue. I think that is mostly a fair opinion although I would add that I again think RaM still adds to a deeper understanding of society. Whether you are a fan or not. Not saying go out and study RaM and replace the actual subjects. Simply pointing out that they do hold deeper, valuable insight.

Again, an opinion piece. Fine, don't enjoy the negative side of it. But it still provides a deeper understanding that allows for valuable insight. It still means it has further levels and ways to look at it.

Bothering about whats under the surface. Because, at least in RaM, under the surface is a specific type of understanding the world. As was pointed out by the chap who posted about the philosophers. The reason to contemplate it is because it adds to our understanding. Contemplating things is what humans do. It is what allowed us to advance to the point in history that we are right now.

So I'm gonna skip responding to this because you've responded to my Nihilism post and it's easier to carry it on there.

Then the comment about me linking the artists and the messages. You seemed to have completely missed the point of that. There is absolutely bugger all link between the negativity just by the way. One can be extremely negative and not be depressed and suicidal. One can be around ONLY POSITIVE THINGS and still be depressed and suicidal. It is a mental condition. Very very important distinction when it comes to media. Someone shooting up a school is not because of negative influence of Slipknot. It is because of a mental issue.

No here you're blatantly wrong as it all adds up. It is a mental condition sure, but that mental condition is aggravated by outside sources. You can't keep putting stuff on one side of a scale and not expect it to fall apart completely at some point. Yes, some people are a lot stronger and don't break as quickly or seemingly indefinitely whereas others snap with the first feather, but eventually it all adds up.

The reason I linked the artists was to SHOW the deeper meaning the show had with regards to its comment on the state of the industry. That is all. Also, I am not deluding myself at all. If it happened now, does not mean the influence of something later on was not pondered. The timeline is controlled by the artist, not you. GoT is a good, current example of this. Saying it is just face value completely removes many factors that are present.

You lost me somewhere between a lubba and dub in here. Seems like you smashed 3 things together?

Whilst the line does not say outright that Rick is autistic it does provide an implication (which again is not positive proof but if you take your meaning as one then that is fine because humans create their own meaning).
I clearly had not taken notice. It is blatantly obvious that Rick has severe issues and hates basically everything but himself, I simple had not yet drawn the line towards optimistic nihilism yet. Ah well.

That's where you're wrong. Rick hates himself most of all. However that self-hate is offset by an equally large superiority complex. Everything is worthless and meaningless but by comparison to Morty and everyone else he also considers himself the most valuable of the worthless things.

I like the last paragraph quite a lot. That is meaning you made. All I am saying is that the meaning is valuable. There is value with it. It is not simple brick deep garbage. Whether you like the show or not is not cause for removing value.

A different kind of meaning though. One can happily add to a media's literary depth as much as one likes, it's the conceptual depth I have a problem with. You might recall Toy Machine never talked about literary depth, about all the theories around the show's story and characters. He jumped straight to the message. A message that I still say should not be propogated.

 

[BARGUILD]

Holy frog farts, a least quote me, man!


Eh, ok. Still don't believe you used it correctly though, using dislike would have made more sense than the more contextual distaste.


I still find that hard to believe because I relate to almost no one in the media I've consumed. There are people better than me, there are people a fuckton worse, but there's no one like me. I can only understand them by context VS societal norms or the laws of their universe. However whichever on they are doesn't change much about how much I enjoy the media if everything else is on point.


Maybe I should have said rather that I don't believe that revealing negative depth in something can improve enjoyment levels.


How is it not relevant? How is adding something dark to my life good?
What I should have probably explained at the time is that I don't consider something like the show's nihilism to be depth because it is not worth uncovering. It's unnecessary darkness.
And it's not deep. It's right there on the surface being flung in people's faces again and again and again.
Skip that, enjoy the gags or move on.

Depth worth uncovering are hidden Easter eggs (IE references to other stuff that isn't an in your face bit), the twists and turns of a whodunnit and anything that perfectly skirts a moral line for instance something that makes on contemplate whether the law and justice were on the same side.


Life is generally negative enough without our media having to add to it. What we need is neutrality, what we need in education is constructive commentary.
When I say positivity I don't mean fake reinforce people but show them success, show them acquiring happiness, show them overcoming adversity. Let them find building blocks, don't break them down, don't darken their lives.

As an aside it might interest you know that I drew shit as a kid. I mean almost every kid does but my stuff was so sub-par my Grade 1 teacher raised concerns about my drawing ability. And of course my parents all dutiful always applauded what I did and I absolutely hated that false praise. It would have been wrong for them to tear me down of course at that stage of life but I think in retrospect I would have preferred pointers on how to draw better.
Can't really tell you why I drew shit. Back then art wasn't something I enjoyed (I didn't enjoy it at the end either, but in the middle I did) and I think I might have had an OCD thing about using all my colouring pencils the same amount so I was combining nonsense colour combinations and using completely unrealistic colours just to fulfill that rule and I was doing the stuff in the first place based on orders rather than a desire to do it or understanding of what was expected.
Of course later when I improved and was doing my best and was actually proud of what I did and started enjoying it I liked the praise, but back then...ugh.


I differentiate "their views" between the political/social and whatever fantasy world they create for me. If they are showing me something they made up it's not the same as trying to show me some sort of specific rhetoric.
I disagree about X and Y though, only the original creator's view is correct. Anything else is supposition that is debunked as soon as one knows the original motivation unless one can somehow forget.
ONLY if the original motivation is not known can both X and Y have equal standing if they in turn are both properly motivated.


IF that is true. THEN that would only mean that Macbeth itself is not the original so still false praise. I recently heard a theory somewhere that all stories more or less conform to 7 archetypes and it would fall into that category, or merely being an old English representation of one of those archetypes. Nothing noteworthy in that, the overall archetype might bear study but not this specific example.

But hmm, analysis you say? Hadn't thought of that. It most certainly did that as my literary essays where basically copy pastes of the techniques I was using for my history essays and got me easy A's providing I could find a viewpoint I thought I could argue well.
I suppose if both history and literary essays were to go then that would represent a significant gap in someone's abilities to motivate things.
Still then though, skip Mr Shaky Spear and switch me over to actual history after Grade 9.


Anarchy is not something that should be discussed, it should be hidden. Law and order should be maintained. Maybe I should also mention that I consider that what happened to Ralph and the gang in that book a crime against nature even if they are just made up characters. He should have made his point with teens or tweens. I would quite literally like all copies of the book burned, the author too if he's still alive, crystal night that shit.
I mention Mugen no Ryvius not because it's the same in a different context but because it's better, raise the same questions and yet is more positive. The breakdown of society is counter-balanced by the need to survive on limited resource. On that island stuff broke down cuz they were moronic kids one second and cavemen the next, there was no reason, it was just cuz they were too damn stupid.

I disagree that everyone considering the concept needs to be mentioned. That's too much clutter in a time where your brain needs to take tons of stuff in. Heck not even the person credited with being first needs to be mentioned actually, just whatever they discovered, but the name acts as proof for the discovery and gives us something to hang it on.


So I'm gonna skip responding to this because you've responded to my Nihilism post and it's easier to carry it on there.


No here you're blatantly wrong as it all adds up. It is a mental condition sure, but that mental condition is aggravated by outside sources. You can't keep putting stuff on one side of a scale and not expect it to fall apart completely at some point. Yes, some people are a lot stronger and don't break as quickly or seemingly indefinitely whereas others snap with the first feather, but eventually it all adds up.


You lost me somewhere between a lubba and dub in here. Seems like you smashed 3 things together?


That's where you're wrong. Rick hates himself most of all. However that self-hate is offset by an equally large superiority complex. Everything is worthless and meaningless but by comparison to Morty and everyone else he also considers himself the most valuable of the worthless things.


A different kind of meaning though. One can happily add to a media's literary depth as much as one likes, it's the conceptual depth I have a problem with. You might recall Toy Machine never talked about literary depth, about all the theories around the show's story and characters. He jumped straight to the message. A message that I still say should not be propogated.

Will do a response later. Subbing for one of the pregnant teachers and so I have to be mentally ready for the gr 4s she taught. Evil bastards I tell ya. So I got to get some sleep lol.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

Also, just want to point one thing out. Your meaning for living is "all about either hoping tomorrow will be better or trying to make it so". Whilst I might enjoy and agree with a statement, it does not make it true for all of life or everyone and anyone who holds a belief.

Yes nihilism is it. I actually didn't see that post but I did point it out in my long post above but I added something to it that might explain the question you pose to me here. Optimistic nihilism is the understanding and ACCEPTANCE of all the negativity and bullshit. It is the acknowledgement of the fact that you were born to die, the universe is massive, and you are insignificant to it. BUT it also shows the side of optimism in that you ACCEPT IT and realise that it does not define who you are. If you do something bad or negative then it allows you to see that what you did is largely negative and you should find the positive side. What you did sucked but meh, it is insignificant and worthless so why don't you do something fun? Why don't you say sorry and move on. There is no positive without negative. The word happy was invented to express something when somebody wasn't sad. As was the word sad.

I think that is my answer then. There is value. I also fully understand not everyone is an optimistic nihilist. But it doesn't mean it isn't valuable for understanding.

I am beyond even an optimistic nihilist because you have to realise literally everything is situational/contextual.

In the grand scheme of things Nihilism is correct.

However you may be born for a reason like being a crutch for a couple who need something to love or to be an heir. I believe once born you are given a purpose, nothing grand, just maybe having a conversation with someone to affect their life in one direction or another or even save a life indirectly, or lives, or perhaps something more grand after all like becoming a world leader. I believe there is an ideal path to each person's particular life but they don't know what it is, the only way to tell if you're on it is if things "click" every once in a while. But yes, one will die, a fact one becomes aware of INCREDIBLY quickly once one has a directly family member pass away, before that it's seemingly an abstract concept. And of course I believe in an Afterlife.

Every interaction you have with someone has consequence on their life so on a person to person level nihilism is wrong in the middle, but it could simply be to waste 5 minutes of their time on any given day, it may not be something worth remembering. However should you take or save a life then usually as far as at least once person is concerned you'll have had a major consequence on their specific life, to them you will literally have affected their entire world, or rather their time in it.

But yes at the same time one should never take the bad to heart.

Now your side of things assumes people immediately make the jump to optimistic nihilism. That it doesn't just tip the scale the wrong way or affect someone with that mental disorder. That the pointless and inevitability of it all will highlight the good in a person's life more-so than if they had nothing to contrast their good against. Those are all rather sizable assumptions to make and require a good deal of analysis, introspection and review to achieve. Rick and Morty barely ever does you any favours in that regard.
I prefer not to put anyone at risk, to not add to the flood of negativity just in case it would tip someone over the edge. Rather hide the message than be yet another source of it. People can survive without the message but certain individuals may not be able to survive with it.

So again, screw the depth, enjoy the pop-culture, or do something else.

 

[Flex]

Wow this has gotten worse than the religion threads!!!!
Watch.... Tomorrow rules will be updated

No Rick and Morty threads are allowed - NO exceptions. We always ask people to be civil and they can't keep to it, so this is how it is now. Contravening will see punishment.

 

[noa]

Wow this has gotten worse than the religion threads!!!!
Watch.... Tomorrow rules will be updated

No Rick and Morty threads are allowed - NO exceptions. We always ask people to be civil and they can't keep to it, so this is how it is now. Contravening will see punishment.

I never meant for it to get this bad, I just wanted to make fun of people attaching meaning to childrens shows ;_;

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

I never meant for it to get this bad, I just wanted to make fun of people attaching meaning to childrens shows ;_;

In what universe is something as crude as Rick and Morty a children's show?

 

[noa]

In what universe is something as crude as Rick and Morty a children's show?

The one where the main viewerbase is a bunch of manchildren squealing about McDonalds sauce and get amused by pickles.

 

[Flex]

The one where the main viewerbase is a bunch of manchildren squealing about McDonalds sauce and get amused by pickles.

Just out of curiosity, what do you find amusing?

 

[Braducken]

The one where the main viewerbase is a bunch of manchildren squealing about McDonalds sauce and get amused by pickles.

Doesn't make them actual children though, according to the law anyway.

 

[noa]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find amusing?

Geopolitics.

 

[Flex]

Geopolitics.

Now some might find that boring AF and think that people that have nothing better to do with their lives are that fascinated by geopolitics that they actually find it amusing.

See... different strokes for different folks. ez pz. Now perhaps go take a cold shower or something and stop the flaming

 

[noa]

Now some might find that boring AF and think that people that have nothing better to do with their lives are that fascinated by geopolitics that they actually find it amusing.

See... different strokes for different folks. ez pz. Now perhaps go take a cold shower or something and stop the flaming

Forgot to add shitposting.

 

[Flex]

Forgot to add shitposting.

Now that makes mores sense!
We have that in common it seems

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

The one where the main viewerbase is a bunch of manchildren squealing about McDonalds sauce and get amused by pickles.

Fair enuff. But you still wouldn't show it to your 5 year old (or if you don't/didn't have one, then neices and nephews and the like). Not quite the same as Tom & Jerry

 

[Flex]

Fair enuff. But you still wouldn't show it to your 5 year old (or if you don't/didn't have one, then neices and nephews and the like). Not quite the same as Tom & Jerry

Well in many ways it is exactly the same as Tom and Jerry

 

[Eon]

K so the group word for that stuff is Nihilism isn't it? It's plain as day that the show is nihilistic, I don't need a derived quote to prove that to me.

No. Not at all. Nihilism and Existentialism are distinct philosophies, yet regularly confused. And within Existentialism there are many concepts, for example the Absurb which is my favourite. I specifically said that the show will have meaning for someone that dabble in these philosophical concepts and ideas. If you do not, steer clear. Many of us can look at the notion of something and perceive it as the realism of life. For others that same notion is something that is purely negative and not something they want it their life. That is ones choice and then one should simply avoid it.

I personally enjoy debating this at length. The Absurb for example is a concept within Existentialism, not Nihilism that debates that it seems that we have it naturally ingrained in our human existence to search for meaning in life and yet are unable to find any that is applicable as a standard to all of human kind, but yet that does not say that there is no meaning at all. Kierkegaard argued that our existence is granted value through religion. Camus on the other hand was an Atheist and believed that morality, outside the scope of religion gives value, the so called order of being, the mere fact that we exist gives us value and responsibility to make the world a better place.

Nihilism on the other hand is the belief that life has no meaning or value whatsoever.

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

No. Not at all. Nihilism and Existentialism are distinct philosophies, yet regularly confused. And within Existentialism there are many concepts, for example the Absurb which is my favourite. I specifically said that the show will have meaning for someone that dabble in these philosophical concepts and ideas. If you do not, steer clear. Many of us can look at the notion of something and perceive it as the realism of life. For others that same notion is something that is purely negative and not something they want it their life. That is ones choice and then one should simply avoid it.

I personally enjoy debating this at length. The Absurb for example is a concept within Existentialism, not Nihilism that debates that it seems that we have it naturally ingrained in our human existence to search for meaning in life and yet are unable to find any that is applicable as a standard to all of human kind, but yet that does not say that there is no meaning at all. Kierkegaard argued that our existence is granted value through religion. Camus on the other hand was an Atheist and believed that morality, outside the scope of religion gives value, the so called order of being, the mere fact that we exist gives us value and responsibility to make the world a better place.

Nihilism on the other hand is the belief that life has no meaning or value whatsoever.

I think you're the one that's confused. The show is all Nihilism. Or maybe I should say the show's answer to Existentialism is Nihilism.

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

Well in many ways it is exactly the same as Tom and Jerry

Explain

 

[D3TTOL]

Ah nice good morning read

Carry on chaps.

 

[Flex]

Explain

Well you see...

 

[SCHUMI4EVER]

Well you see...

I refute your argument sir.

 

[D3TTOL]

Explain

Well, you see...
There are some emotional and deep meaning in the show.
Them being that if at first you don't succeed, you never will because the mouse is using hax.

 

[charizarding]

The memes about Rick and Morty fans are true.. how saddening :grief:

 

[Flex]

I refute your argument sir.

How dare you refute my statement when clearly [MENTION=32560]D3TTOL[/MENTION] was in the process of completing it?