Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum, Form smells a Random Banter #235

[enderlord99]

While this is normally true, the term "anime" is used in the west to refer nigh exclusively to Japanese animation, and certain art styles and tropes are very heavily present in anime but not so much in western works, to the point that western works that include those elements are said to be anime-inspired.

An argument could be made that "anime" should be used to refer to a particular threefold intersection of medium, genre, and aesthetic (albeit with very broad parameters for both of the latter) but "place of origin" does not, or at least should not, be relevant for such discussions (no matter how much it is insisted by... certain portions of the "nerd" or "geek" subculture. Diamonds are diamonds, no matter whether they are made in a lab or dug from the ground; likewise, anime is anime, regardless of geography or politics.

King of the Hill is not, however, a shonen anime.

[LaZodiac]

An argument could be made that "anime" should be used to refer to a particular threefold intersection of medium, genre, and aesthetic (albeit with very broad parameters for both of the latter) but "place of origin" does not, or at least should not, be relevant for such discussions (no matter how much it is insisted by... certain portions of the "nerd" or "geek" subculture. Diamonds are diamonds, no matter whether they are made in a lab or dug from the ground; likewise, anime is anime, regardless of geography or politics.

King of the Hill is not, however, a shonen anime.

Yup! It's slice of life genre, 100%. It's even got that "actually hews close to real life but exaggerated enough to be interesting to watch, and shockingly heart warming or heart wrenching at times" that all good slice of life has.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I think Anime is fine meaning 'Japanese Animation', just like we use French film or Italian Opera. I also use Toku to refer to Japanese special effects shows.

However, it's used to refer to origin, style, and genre. That's just confusing, especially because people don't tend to differentiate between which they're using.

[Lord Raziere]

You ever have a moment where you see a video about an show you used to watch and then the video discussion just completly changes your view on it?

a while back I was goofing around and saw a 40-minute video talking about quantifying the "power" of Dale Gribble from King of the Hill and I clicked on it because I had nothing better to do...

The video is mostly a joke: The guy who made it is taking the "talk about King of the Hill as if it was an anime" meme and running with it for the sake of satire and a lot of it as taking one-off jokes or Dale's own nonsense at face value...

But the video does cite multiple instances of Dale demonstrating feats of strength, durability, recovery, and pain tolerance across every season of the show and now I can't help but see "Dale is superhuman but hides it due to laziness and paranoia," albeit a much more subdued version than what's proposed in the video, as being canon.

For sake of having something else to talk about other than the dumb anime definition discussion rehashed again....

I think some video about the frank grimes episode of simpsons changed my view on that show because it showed how the Simpsons changed american culture and how Frank Grimes was the finale for the original writers.

I've watched a lot videos on ATLA but I wouldn't say they changed my view of it much just enhanced it. like learning about the Earth Kingdom in ATLA is actually far less united then Fire Nation and is actually unwieldy to command or govern because of its sheer size, while the Fire Nation became so dominant because it was smaller and thus its line of communications could be easily centralized, made me understand that war better, and it shows much thought and effort the writers put into its worldbuilding so that situation works despite the usual logic of a bigger nation with more land being more of a threat.

I once watched a channel on analyzing Nu Who episodes, but they said Midnight was the best episode and I agreed with them so it didn't really change my view.

I think Masakos' videos changed my view of Dragon ball in a few ways.

[Rater202]

...So I'm just gonna lay out my initial point in bullets.

1: A meme is people discussing King of The Hill as if it was an anime, most commonly shonen.

2: Someone posted a 40-minute video that took this meme and ran with it for the purposes of satire.

3: While clearly satirical, the video cited enough unambiguous, unaltered points from the source material that the point is still valid even if you throw out the jokes.

4: I can no longer see the source material the way I did before.

5. Does anyone else have a comparable experience?

[Anonymouswizard]

Nope.

I mean, a few experiences with viewing comedies differently, but that's due to getting the jokes. Unfortunately by the time I found the videos detailing the problematic aspects of The Big Bang Theory I already hatred it because I felt like they'd started being offensive towards those with neurodiversity (even setting aside the fact that Sheldon is not autistic). So my opinion want really changed, just strengthened.

[Lord Raziere]

...So I'm just gonna lay out my initial point in bullets.

1: A meme is people discussing King of The Hill as if it was an anime, most commonly shonen.

2: Someone posted a 40-minute video that took this meme and ran with it for the purposes of satire.

3: While clearly satirical, the video cited enough unambiguous, unaltered points from the source material that the point is still valid even if you throw out the jokes.

4: I can no longer see the source material the way I did before.

5. Does anyone else have a comparable experience?

I mean thinking about it, I do recall my view about pokemon changing a bit when I watch some of Lockstin's videos because his discussion videos on pokemon are always interesting. like the idea that Fairy is light magic, that Dragon is this primal force magic that all things might come from and that Psychic is just more refined type of magic just feels really clarifying about stuff. or how this or that works.

like I think I might've had an experience like that specifically but I don't recall on what.

[Beeftank]

I once saw a video talking about how Ser Pounce was the Prince that was promised in ASOAIF. Obviously it was a joke, but it pointed out how in a book series that big, you can go looking for evidence to support basically whatever conclusion you want to come to. It made me take a lot of out-there theories with a grain of salt.

[Rater202]

Overlord, the video game series by Rhianna Pratchett not the thing with the guy who gets stuck in an MMO as his munchkin-tier over powered lich character, have a recurring theme of "is it better for leaders to be 'good' or for the leaders to be competent and actually take care of the people they rule over."

Antagonists in the series tend to be so-called heroes who end up becoming corrupt or people who mean well but make things worse because they're short sited or hypocriticle. When they're not, they're someone who is... Eviler than you.

From the player's perspective, you have often presented a choice between "do something practical" or "be evil for the sake of being evil" which has both cosmetic effects and a tangible effect on gameplay.

But in the first game, if you choose the 0% corruption route(which is strongly implied to be the canon route come to the sequel) then by the end of the game you're a Knight in Shining Armor who defeated seven great evils all far more malevolent and destructive than yourself, saved many people from slavery and in one case extinction, returned food to a starving village, forgave betrayal... Like, other than the army of gremlins following you everywhere praising your evilness, you're basically a stereotypical fantasy good guy.

I don't know if that supports the narrative they're going for or undermines it.

(and of course, the 100% corruption route just makes you a short-sighted destructive idiot who burns everything they see for short-term gain. You're the 'Overlord' but you have nothing to Lord Over)

[Lord Raziere]

I feel like if that is those are the outcomes of that game, then its running on Bioware morality and thus not really examining the issue correctly- if at all.

like to properly explore that question you have to figure out what a properly competent ruler would do in any situation, and what a good person would do and you can't just make the good action deliberately shortsighted or stupid, it has be something you can actually see a good person thinking is the right idea and contrasting the probable outcomes from each without being too punishing, because the competent pragmatic ruler is punished too much for their decisions, they're not really competent are they, and if the good person is punished too much for their decisions it can come off as grimdark and not really taking compassion or the benefits of such behavior into account and just assuming that its naïve or dumb and thus not portraying good well. thus the outcomes of taking the decisions have to be different in some way but not in a way that clearly shows one is better than the other in an obvious way, because if your goal is to get people thinking about that, then demonizing one path while making one path good won't be fair and just make people turn their brains off and assume one thing or another. they have to be able to interpret for themselves whether any given decision was truly the right one to take or not.

[Anonymouswizard]

If Fable 3 taught me anything it's that a competent ruler spends all their kingdom's money on the goods option and then raises the rent as much as they can do the realm didn't go bankrupt

Yeah, that game might have been better without a golden solution.

Really the only correct way to write morality in games is not to codify it in a moral manner. If you want to track it track it more finely, being cruel should have different effects to bring homicidal.

[Rater202]

I feel like if that is those are the outcomes of that game, then its running on Bioware morality and thus not really examining the issue correctly- if at all.

like to properly explore that question you have to figure out what a properly competent ruler would do in any situation, and what a good person would do and you can't just make the good action deliberately shortsighted or stupid, it has be something you can actually see a good person thinking is the right idea and contrasting the probable outcomes from each without being too punishing, because the competent pragmatic ruler is punished too much for their decisions, they're not really competent are they, and if the good person is punished too much for their decisions it can come off as grimdark and not really taking compassion or the benefits of such behavior into account and just assuming that its naïve or dumb and thus not portraying good well. thus the outcomes of taking the decisions have to be different in some way but not in a way that clearly shows one is better than the other in an obvious way, because if your goal is to get people thinking about that, then demonizing one path while making one path good won't be fair and just make people turn their brains off and assume one thing or another. they have to be able to interpret for themselves whether any given decision was truly the right one to take or not.

Those are the two extremes. I gave it in percentages for a reason. If you do pointlessly evil things, which includes both storyline choices and going out of your way to be a jackass to people, your corruption percentage goes up... But sometimes doing the practicel thing, or going out of your way to be benevolent will lower your corruption so you can still do some evil things and still get the "good guy ending."

For what it's worth, Overlord II threw out "Evil in NAme Only" versus "Evil for the sakre of Evil" in favor of Domination nd Destruction. The Overlord of the first game is a Fallen Hero. The OVerlord of the Second Game was raised from a young age to be evil.

In the first game, the first settlement you rescue betrays you when a powerful warrior shows up and gives them the ultimatum of join or die. You can forgive them... Or raise the town and enslave the survivors.

In the second game, upon returning to your hometown tha ostracized you for your entire childhood becuase of your powers and strange appearance and then sold you out as soon as the magic hating EMpire showed up, your choices are to 1: Either kill the Imperial Governor yourself or leave him to die of exposure while trapped under a collapsed statue of himself and 2: Slaughter everyone in the village except the girl who was nice to you as a child or merely forcibly bend them to your will with a permanent mind control spell.

The second game is unambiguous. You are not the good guy, you've just got a vested interest in stopping the other bad guy.

the first game though...

[Fyraltari]

I mean the Overlord of the original game was actually the Eighth Hero, and the Seven Heroes were all corrupted by the Wizard/previous Overlord. Meanwhile in the second game you are mostly going against the also very clearly evil empire and your choices are between Destruction and Domination, so I'm not sure how much it's fair to frame this franchise in terms of "pragmatic evil vs incompetent good" instead of "evil vs even worse evil".

Also I think the games are more interested in having a laugh by spinning fantasy clichés than making some sort of point on morality.

[Rater202]

I mean the Overlord of the original game was actually the Eighth Hero, and the Seven Heroes were all corrupted by the Wizard/previous Overlord. Meanwhile in the second game you are mostly going against the also very clearly evil empire and your choices are between Destruction and Domination, so I'm not sure how much it's fair to frame this franchise in terms of "pragmatic evil vs incompetent good" instead of "evil vs even worse evil".

Also I think the games are more interested in having a laugh by spinning fantasy clichés than making some sort of point on morality.

I mean, with the possible exception of Oberon the corruption seems to consist entirely of the wizard encouraging the other heroes to submit to their vices and then they do the rest.

Also, Overlord Dark Legend has protagonist Lord Gromgard actively trying to b evil only to end up beloved and respected because he does a better job of ruling that his nominally benevolent but vapid older siblings with it being noted by a peasant that your ancestor the Black Barron was evil but at least there was enough food to go around.

[Anonymouswizard]

I still think you might be reading into it a bit too much. I think it can probably be summed up with 'anybody can fall into corruption/indulgence' and 'bad but efficient is better than good but selfish'.

Like it's not trying to be a serious Kingdom ruling simulator, at least not in the way that Kingmaker is. Now while I haven't gotten very fast in Kingmaker I'm sure they're will be benefits to a pragmatic adherence to Law over Good. Which is where the most interesting conflict of the D&D morality system lies anyway.

[Peelee]

Could a vampire diet by only feasting on diabetics?

[Keltest]

Could a vampire diet by only feasting on diabetics?

Probably not unless theyre in some sort of critical state when the vampire feeds on them. They still need their blood sugar after all, they just dont regulate it correctly without outside assistance.

[enderlord99]

Could a vampire diet by only feasting on diabetics?

I don't understand the question.

[factotum]

Probably not unless theyre in some sort of critical state when the vampire feeds on them. They still need their blood sugar after all, they just dont regulate it correctly without outside assistance.

This. When properly controlled a diabetic's blood sugar should be exactly the same as a non-diabetic. If *not* properly controlled then high blood sugar is the most likely way to end up, so if anything, the vampire would get *fatter*.

[Peelee]

I don't understand the question.

It's a joke about a low-sugar diet.

[Fyraltari]

I mean, with the possible exception of Oberon the corruption seems to consist entirely of the wizard encouraging the other heroes to submit to their vices and then they do the rest.

Yes. That is what the word means.

Also, Overlord Dark Legend has protagonist Lord Gromgard actively trying to b evil only to end up beloved and respected because he does a better job of ruling that his nominally benevolent but vapid older siblings with it being noted by a peasant that your ancestor the Black Barron was evil but at least there was enough food to go around.

Aren't the siblings kind of evil too? I don't really know that one.

Could a vampire diet by only feasting on diabetics?

I love how bloody raw that is. No, "I just had a thought..." or "I just wondered if...", Nope you just barge in with this... whatever this questio even is. Mad respect.

[Peelee]

I love how bloody raw that is. No, "I just had a thought..." or "I just wondered if...", Nope you just barge in with this... whatever this questio even is. Mad respect.

A friend of mine has a saying. There's no room in Celestia for cowards.

Slightly paraphrased.

[Rater202]

Could a vampire diet by only feasting on diabetics?

It depends on what exactly the vampire needs from the blood and, if it's related to insulin or blood sugar, whether the particular diabetic has too much or not enough.

If they're traditional "supernatural undead consumes blood as a medium for life force" style vampires then it would probably have no effect.

...Though now I'm recalling the Tweenlight sketch from a Simpsons Halloween special.

Homer saves Lisa from being eaten by Dracula and an eight-year-old Edward Cullen knock off by tearing his shirt and throwing himself in between them and her, with the two vampires having given into their bloodlust not particularly caring anymore.

They bite him and suck out his blood... And immediately become morbidly obese and then drop dead from the cholesterol in Homer's blood.

[enderlord99]

It's a joke about a low-sugar diet.

Diabetics have higher blood-sugar on average than non-diabetics.

That's like saying "can a fox go on a diet by only eating honey-glazed chicken"

[Fyraltari]

A friend of mine has a saying. There's no room in Celestia for cowards.

Slightly paraphrased.

You know, I get the feeling cowardice is often regarded as the worst vice there is and I don't really get it, is it really that much worse than dishonesty or selfishness?

[Peelee]

You know, I get the feeling cowardice is often regarded as the worst vice there is and I don't really get it, is it really that much worse than dishonesty or selfishness?

No, but it's a fun thing to say when we do something bold or foolhardy. Usually in D&D, sometimes in real life. More fun than saying "fortune favors the bold," at least.

[Fyraltari]

No, but it's a fun thing to say when we do something bold or foolhardy. Usually in D&D, sometimes in real life. More fun than saying "fortune favors the bold," at least.

Beyond that, I find that people will forgive any flaw in a character* more easily than perceived cowardice. And I can hardly think of any work (literally, I got Silence by Scorcese and that's it) that presents a "coward" in a sympathetic light.

*Deliberately avoiding discussions of real people here

[dafrca]

You know, I get the feeling cowardice is often regarded as the worst vice there is and I don't really get it, is it really that much worse than dishonesty or selfishness?

I sometimes think it is because cowardice is so often tied with other traits we dislike. The coward abandons the others to their fate leaving a sense of them being a coward and trader to the team for example. I also notice when we want a person to be seen in a more sympathetic light we tend to use words like timid or fearful or faint-hearted and use cowardly more for those we feel have done something wrong.

Of course this is just my opinion based on personal observations.

[Rater202]

You know, I get the feeling cowardice is often regarded as the worst vice there is and I don't really get it, is it really that much worse than dishonesty or selfishness?

I think it's in part becuase the common conception of cowardice and courage are stereotyped down to "fear and lack thereof" when it's really more complicated. Any actions motivated by fear is assigned to cowardice while anything showing a lack of fear is assigned to bravery when... No.

The first Season of Digimon has a character arc that emphasizes this pretty well.

Throughout the Franchise, the main gimmic is that "partner Digimon" have a bond with a human that lets them safely and sustainably feed on that human's emotional energy which allows them to grow stronger faster and temporarily advance into more mature forms before they'd be ready to do it naturally.

Tai Kamiya(Tachi Yagami in the orignal Japanese), leader of the human children of the first season, is the bearer of the crest of Courage, meaning that acts of genuine courage on his part would allow his partner to progress into the Ultimate Level(Perfect int he orignal Japanese) which at the time was beleived to b as far as you could go.

Being the first child to get his Crest, and noting that the evil Digimon they were encountering were getting a lot more powerful than the ones they faced at the beginning, Tai keeps trying to find ways to force this initial transformation... Which culminates in him deliberately throwing himself into danger, thinking that his lack of fear and willingness to take foolish risks was "Courage" which.. Results in Dark evolution, Tai's partner advancing into a form he would never naturally take and then going on a violent rampage until he ran out of juice and reverted. Courage would make Tai's partner stronger, but foolhardiness doesn't set right with his system and has adverse effects.

(Tai, knowing he screwed up but not quite knowing what he did wrong, briefly becomes afraid to let his partner do anything for fear of accidentally turning him into a literal monster again.)

Much later, after it's established that, just because humans become Digital in the Digital world, that doesn't mean they benefit from the immortality that naturally occurring digital life forms have—in they die in the Digital World—Tai is faced with a situation where he has to walk through an illusion covering a gap in an electrified fence to save one of his friends and he can't becuase they aren't 100% sure that they have the gap right and the fence is electrified enough to kill a human. He's too afraid... They manage to rescue her, but Tai feels like garbage for a bit becuase he's supposed to be the brave one. Why was he so scared when he's supposed to be brave? He still doesn't get it, he thinks he's a coward but... Fear is a rational response to real danger. Tha'ts not automatically cowardice.

This comes to a head when the Big Bad of the Arc goes into a Super-Powered Meltdown. Tai, scared ****less, rushes in to distract him so the others can get away fully aware of the risks but not letting his fear stop him from doing the right thing. And that's when it clicks for him, Courage isn't the lack of fear, it's not risking yourself for no reason... It's knowing exactly what the risks are, being terrified of it, and then doing the right thing anyway. This understanding mixed with genuine bravely is what allows Tai's partner to assume his Ultimate form for real.

But the simple fact that that's a lesson that needs to be taught with a long character arc instead of just known.

So if bravery is being afraid and doing the right thing anyway, then Cowardice isn't just simple fear.

I don't have an example as good as my example for courage, but Cowardice isn't just fear... Cowardice is knowing the risks and then refuses to take them when they need to be done. Cowardice isn't not bettering 10 bucks on a sure thing horse race becuase of the infinitesimally small possibility that your horse will lose. cowardice is knowing that your brother, who you are on good terms with, will die if he doesn't get a compatible kidney, doing the research on the risks, coming to terms with it, agreeing to give him yours... Then backing out at the last second and leaving him to die becuase only the day before going under the knife do you decide that you don't want to live with the potential side effect of losing a kidney yourself despite having known about them for months.

That's why cowardice is considered so reprehensible.

It's just... People conflate cowardice with fear the same way that people associate bravery with lack of fear.

[factotum]

I think it's in part becuase the common conception of cowardice and courage are stereotyped down to "fear and lack thereof" when it's really more complicated. Any actions motivated by fear is assigned to cowardice while anything showing a lack of fear is assigned to bravery when... No.

Technically the dictionary definition of "bravery" does imply a lack of fear, but I always thought that was somewhat odd. To my mind, facing your fear and overcoming it is a far more courageous act than simply not experiencing fear in the first place.