Report KenpachiNoPein's Profile

hey there i want to invite you to my anime/manga server. the reason being is that you have good taste and you like Le Naki Ko. you are good in my book. please check it out, and if u dont like it, you can get out.
https://discord.gg/FEdBXRU

It's interesting that you bring the comedy aspect up. Comedy is one of those things that's difficult because what's funny is heavily subjective. So, you have to examine whether there's a bias against a particular type of comedy that caused a reviewer to nitpick aspects that they wouldn't have talked about in another comedy with a different type of humour, or if they just didn't find it funny. Because if we're to call it a bias whenever someone looks at a comedy work that does some type of humour that doesn't work for them or one that really works for them, we have to wonder if it's actually possible to do any review of a comedic work without bias? Because any judgement of the comedy as well done or poorly executed is going to be subjective. Objectively, I can tell you there were jokes and what kind of humour they were using in general. Once I start making quality judgments about them, it's subjective.

I also have to wonder why you think I don't like gory humour when I called Corpse Party unintentionally funny due to the overblown gore.

Hating a show is a subjective response unless there's something outside of the show that causes the hatred, it's not a form of bias. It's a reaction to the show. You seem to be under the Miss-impression that there's an objective level at which a show is good or bad. Which is not the case. Any questions of quality when it comes to media are going to be subjective. To use a very general example, you might look at the animation in something and think it's choppy, poorly done and uses too much repeated footage. Someone else might look at that same animation and think that it's stylized and artistic and not be bothered by the repeated footage at all. That difference could very well result in you saying the artwork sucks and the other person calling it good.

The problem with your definition is that it's really subjective. Someone doesn't bring up something you thought was good within a show, bias. Someone doesn't bring up something you thought was bad, bias. Maybe they didn't bring up those elements because they had no reaction to them? Maybe they had a more general statement that they felt encompassed that element and you made a distinction between it and the other thing?

It just seems tacky to compare racism/homophobia/able-ism to reviewer bias and it could easily be misconstrued as an unwarranted comparison on your part of a supposedly biased reviewer to Hitler.

"We may be confused here because I don't understand what you mean here at all. I agreed with the whole? What whole and when?"

Oh, you're confused. Let me try to simplify this, then. Basically, I'm saying that your statement was that you agreed with the overall "this is the quality of this series" but you disagreed in the sense that you thought that certain things should get more credit.

I believe it's you who doesn't understand it. A bias has a source. It's not necessarily bought, but there's a source. For instance, a reviewer with a bias against Westerns would nitpick westerns for things they wouldn't bring up if any other type of media did it. A reviewer with a bias against a particular studio is going to find reasons to rate anything they do lowly.

To put it in simple terms, a review bias is something outside of the work that influences the reviewer's view of the work. Racial bias, since you brought it up, is similar in that the person with the bias doesn't dislike a person because of any aspect of their personality but because of their race. Why you brought up racial bias, only you can say for sure.

And are you seriously suggesting that my reviews should go through every single scene, every single facet of a work? Because I could technically go through every single episode of every single thing I review and talk about what I liked/disliked about it in detail, but that would honestly take far too much time and it's more efficient and, in my opinion, more than sufficient to talk about what I disliked/liked about the series/film in general.

And that isn't the same thing as you tore down. You said that you agreed with the whole. My statement referred to your disagreement with specific parts.

In that case, name the source of the bias in any review. Did I get paid by a studio for what I wrote? That would be a bias. Or did I express a subjective opinion that you personally didn't agree with whether in a specific part or in general? Because that's not a bias. That's a subjective assessment of quality that's necessary for a review. Otherwise you couldn't give a score at all.

It was about as unbiased as my other reviews. You just see some of the others as biased because you happen to disagree with them.

"I love how you say something you personally experienced not to be the case. Link_of_Hyrule presented two arguments about this very issue directly to you: 1.That he was tired of being asked about it and said that to shut people up and 2. The author has a unintended, subconscious meaning in the work. So, to say that there are no reasons for him to say what he didn't mean is just dishonest. Let me present another possible argument: He was trying to protect all the different meanings people came up with from being wrong if he presented his intended meaning but was pressured to present something. This resulted in what he said in the interview you mentioned. I don't believe this is the case but if you can't state why these reasons aren't valid explanations, then you can't claim there is no reason to think there is a meaning after being presented with them(if you want to be an honest skeptic)."

If he was tired of being asked about it it would make more sense for him to give the intended meaning, if there was one. That would clarify the situation once and for all. There's also a really obvious issue with the "subconscious" idea. It's the very same problem with the argument that you can't prove something doesn't exist therefore it must. No one can prove that Anno didn't have some subconscious ideas that went into it, not without some way of delving into his subconscious mind. But by the same token I could claim that invisible pixies exist and that they can hide from infrared sensors and all sorts of others. You can't prove they don't therefore they must. It's an argument built on nothing. It's just a final, desperate attempt at grasping at anything. Then we have this idea that he's trying to protect all the interpretations. The trouble with that is that the statement that it's inherently meaningless is actively dismissive of them, rather than protective. If he had really wanted to safeguard them then he would have given an answer involving broad themes that could be interpreted in different ways rather than saying that it's meaningless. Because that would have given more validity to those interpretations instead of dismissing them. And that's why, from a critical perspective, those explanations don't hold up.

"You are just strawmanning me now. You would have to be an absolute idiot at reading comprehension to say that was why I said they were justified. They were not justified because you didn't like the thing they liked but because they found it both insulting and untrue. You are blatantly trying to make my argument look stupid and you can fuck off if you want to keep that dishonesty up."

The example is still valid in that context. The person I'm talking to could still find my statement untrue and insulting, which they probably would if they liked Twilight. Either way what it comes down to is that we disagree on the quality of a work of media. Which is still a stupid thing to feel personally insulted over. By that logic I should feel insulted by people who think Evangelion is complex because I find that idea to be untrue. Frankly, the only person who could justifiably be insulted by my disagreement with them over the quality of Evangelion would be Anno or one of the other writers who personally put part of their life into making it. Although I doubt any of them would feel insulted even if they saw my review just because they're probably used to hearing criticisms since it kind of comes with doing anything creative. And, like many other people in those fields, they have their fan base to balance that out.

"Mountains of evidence = the writer said something in an interview and you can't possibly know how genuine he was being. Nice one. That isn't an insult to millions of scientists or anything."

It's not insulting to scientists at all. The only way to know what a writer was thinking or trying to do is by their saying so themselves. Which is why the term "word of God" exists in media to describe what the writer has said about the series.

"It's not like someone can say something they don't mean and have other motives behind it or anything(sarcasm). Also, it is demonstrably false to say that a person has never lied in an interview before, so how can you rule that out? I don't believe them but there are many explanations that work that NGE fans give. Once again, stop pretending there isn't a debate on this subject."

Again, there isn't a debate simply because there's no reason to believe that Anno was being insincere when he said that there's no meaning nor has he ever gone back on that statement in any way. Nor is there any reason for him to say it if he doesn't mean it. Acting like "well, he might not have meant it" is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and actively making noise so that you don't have to hear someone tell you something that you don't want to hear. It's just ignoring the facts, pure and simple.

"Let me paint a picture for you on how laughable it is that you, of all people, think you could share your opinion without someone getting mad at you: You walk up to a big Evangelion fan and tell them how you think all the characters are not endearing, complex or realistic. The robot responds "I have no emotion at all towards that extremely insulting thing to say to me. I find them good though." You then respond "Well, you are factually wrong on that matter." The robot agrees to disagree with you and walks away because you just said something super insulting and, somehow, expect anyone not to be mad at you. Somehow, you think this is how reality works."

Okay, now let me paint a picture on how ridiculous your idea of insulting is. I walk up to someone and they ask "Hey, what do you think of Twilight?" I say "I found it to be wish fulfillment drek with one-dimensional characters major problematic elements and noting of redeeming value."
They would be justified to feel personally insulted because I didn't like a thing that they liked. Which is stupid. It's not insulting to you at all.

"I've seen many fans argue that the writer did have symbolic meanings behind things. You even argued with one before me called Link_of_Hyrule, so don't act like there isn't a debate on that subject."

Frankly, there is no real debate on it. He's said there's no meaning in interviews. It's part of the public record. I actually saw a piece that talked about it and the concept of the "death of the writer" since so many fans find meaning in it in spite of him. Trying to argue that he never said that when anyone can look it up is like trying to argue that evolution doesn't happen in spite of all the cases where it's been actively observed. You can do it, but you're going to be demonstrably wrong.

Or do you think that someone who actively ignores what the writer's said can still have a well thought out opinion? Just to be clear, I'm not saying that someone can't disagree with the writer and have a well thought out opinion. But there's a difference between thinking that they conveyed more than they meant to or that they did a poor job of conveying something and actively being in denial about what they've said.

There are indeed things that are based more on personal preference and experience than anything else. However, these things can still be conveyed to people with different views. IE: this worked/didn't work for me and here's why. I will grant that it can be very difficult to truly understand someone else's perspective in those cases but you can act like a civil adult about it. Share your opinions and agree to disagree.

"So you think that something you perceive as a flaw is automatically seen as a flaw to everyone? "

Actually, I was trying to convey that someone can see why others might find a problem with something. For example, someone might like Highschool of the Dead but I'm sure they could understand why the fan-service level is a problem for other people. I liked Doki Doki Precure, but I can understand why some people found it to be overly derivative of the rest of the franchise. Even if I don't personally agree. I personally think that that derivativeness is largely well done homage. That being said, I can still understand why other people might view it as a flaw.

The same is true for NGE. We can all acknowledge that the writer didn't have any meaning behind his imagery. He's come out and said so. For the fans, that's a strength of the series since it invites constructed interpretations. For me it doesn't work and comes across as pretentious twaddle. You don't have to agree with me that it's a flaw to be able to look at it and say "yeah, I can understand where that comes from."

Sorry if I was unclear.

I'm not arguing that media doesn't affect people's lives. I'm arguing that someone else's opinion on a piece of media isn't going to affect your life in any way. These are two different things entirely.

They may not equal emotional bankruptcy, however. Someone with a well thought out opinion is going to be able to understand why people might feel contrary since they know the flaws of the piece. Even if they may personally consider those flaws minor, they can understand why someone might have more of a problem with them. Which is exactly why there's no need for anger over someone not liking it.

It's one thing to disagree with what someone says. It's one thing to think that someone has voiced their opinion badly.

It's an opinion over a piece of media, it's not something sociopolitical that's going to have an effect on anyone's life ever. As such it's really foolhardy to get actively angry over someone's purely subjective opinion.

See, the contrary opinion isn't any kind of threat to someone who themselves has a well thought out opinion. As such, they don't feel any need to get angry over it. They'll either choose to ignore it, request elaboration or offer constructive criticisms. Whether they think the contrary opinion was well supported/stated or not may impact which they do.

I'm sorry, but you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that people who disagree with me are insecure about their opinions. I said that people who get angry over differing opinions are insecure. There's an important distinction there.

I'll just repeat myself, people with well thought out opinions have no need to become angry over someone daring to disagree with them. They can understand the other person's perspective even if they don't agree with it because they've thought through their own opinion well enough to understand someone else's perspective.

There are plenty of reasonable people who disagree with my opinions, including people who liked Evangelion. I've interacted with several of them at length. I've also interacted with several of the frothing, enraged people who are absolutely livid because my perspective is not the same as theirs.

It's a simple and fully logical assertion. People with well thought out opinions don't feel threatened or angered by someone with a differing opinion. They'll certainly disagree but they feel no need to turn it into a fight and there is a very high chance that they can understand where the differing opinion is coming from.

In contrast, people who have poorly thought out opinions feel threatened by people who disagree with them because the differing opinion is a threat to them. Ergo they feel the need to go into conniptions about how the differing opinion is "wrong."

It's not just Evangelion fans who do it, and not all Evangelion fans do it by any means. There are fans of virtually anything who throw fits when someone doesn't like the thing they like and there are people who hate things and throw fits when people like the things they don't like.

There are other factors besides just having opinions that aren't well thought out but I've yet to see someone with a well thought out opinion who couldn't handle someone disagreeing with them.

It's because they're insecure about the quality of the show while also being really invested in it. The combination causes rage at contrary opinions.

I want you to invite to participate in an chess tournament event on MAL.
Follow the link below and sign up if you are interested.

http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1386793&show=0#post1