Can "bad message" be objective criticism? (I suggest reading the whole thing before answering)

Anjuro said:
I think the first argument is not applicable here, if there really was a relation 'get's exposed to x 100 times -> does x in real life' that would be a huge reason to censor aggresively, in my opinion this relation does not exist at all, it's more like 'person predisposed to do x sees x -> does x (but might have done x regardless)'.

See the thing about what you're saying about the 'message' being exempt does not really make sense. For example , if you have a story about how war can unite nations and bring peace e.g. kingdom, I believe in an abstract sense that is a truly horrible premise to apply to the real world but I still don't think kingdom should not exist. As I said, I believe all fiction is digested as fiction by most viewers, fiction is not a documentary, it doesn't aim to teach even if there is a 'message', it merely presents a concept, the negotiation about how to interpret the message happens in reality (informed by the shared societal values we all hold) which is why generally speaking all fiction is fine to be consumed as fiction. Propaganda on the other hand e.g. something that presents itself as factual with a bad premise, can be very very harmful.

Apolygon2 said:


I can't really answer this without having seen kingdom, but knowing what kind of story it is, my guess is it will go ahead and show all the flaws and tragedies that come from that "message" while sending it. which makes it completely different. since it would be a showcase of a certain view point, not necessarily painting it as a great thing that you should do.

but again that's just my guess, so I will have to cease fire until I know what I'm talking about. which is probably for ever since I am very likely to forget or not care about this thread by the time I watch or read kingdom. 

Anjuro said:
It does touch on the tragedy of war but overwhelmingly the story is about the glorious reunification project of china. Every battle is a goddamn bloodbath and, they must have friends dying left and right and yet they completely shrug that under the rug. At one point they encounter a 'villain' who wants to kill them to get revenge for his village who was buried alive by them and the protagonist is like 'you know that sucks and all but it wasn't me that did it, now lets resume the fighting'. Almost inevitably a story that is about the exploits of great generals and their brilliant plans is going to make light of the tragedy and bloodshed of war, kingdom is no different. If kingdom was real life I would be appalled (which I guess it technically is since it's based on the real warring states era of china).

So to put it briefly, no, the message of kingdom does not really address the cruelty and senselessness of war ( compare to dororo for example which does a much better job in my opinion since the core premise is essentially commenting on the cruelty of sacrificing one for the good of many and quite literally has the pro-war faction make a deal with the devil (demons) to win the war. It even comments on the fact that the protagonist is not entirely justified in their violence to regain his freedom and that once it is all done he will have to learn to be 'human' again. It's heavy stuff once you get into it), it's all about the lofty dream of peace through war.

Apolygon2 said:

if you're right and that is actually the message and not just an element in the story, then I would say, in kingdom the message makes it slightly worse and it would have been better off not having it.


but all these aside I don't think my perspective is necessarily the only way to look at things. and I think there is a good case to be made against it.

Anjuro said:
I think there are things to like about kingdom but I'm just trying to illustrate that a 'bad message' can still reside in a passable or even good show. Of course you are free to disagree and I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, just making my position clear. Anyway, we can leave it at that if you wish.

Apolygon2 said:
I have always been and am of the belief that nothing is off limits in fiction. I hate the notion that some shows get called problematic for reasons like "weird or morally questionable fanservice", "talking about certain topics" and basically anything that shows get... I hate this word, but "cancelled" for.

redo of healer doesn't suck because the morally questionable at best mc rapes the villain, it sucks because it's a shit show with poor writing. and that is something that I genuinely hate how is not more excepted as the right way to look at fictional stories, even though subconsciously people do show way less reaction to shows that are great and involve those things.

but.... 

there is an exception for me that people have called me a hypocrite for, and I don't think that's fair.

that exception, is when a show or piece of media, is promoting; not showing, not "glorifying", not implying, but straight up promoting a problematic message.

I don't care if the mc is a piece of shit rapist, in show were that aspect is used for edgy fanservice, but if it tries to go out of it's way to say "that's a good thing and you should think it's right" now it's a problem.

so why? why is it that I think that's a negative aspect despite believing that nothing is off limits in fiction?


well, I for one consider an impactful, positive and possibly life changing message or advice, to be something that adds to fiction and makes it better. and I think most people can agree with that.

death parade is better because it teaches you to value your life. bojack horseman is better because of it's countless genuinely life changing advice. mob psycho is better for it's message of self improvement and anti-main character syndrome.

so the way I see it, a harmful, unhelpful, or undeserved message, isn't just a sign of bad morals, it's also harmful to the piece.

like recently, I was watching an anime, which is possibly the worst anime outside of "so bad it's good" things that I have seen called "My life as Inukai-san's Dog" and it's a pretty shitty ecchi with a weird, certainly illegal in real life gimmick of, you guessed it, the main character having turned into a dog who the main girl REALLY LIKES. 

and if you were thinking that, no she has no idea the dog is a human, she just likes to groom the dog or get groomed by the dog, or just generally be a degenerate about it.

and the show was pretty garbage, but what pushed me to give it a high 1 instead of a 2/10, was the fact that it has started trying to say "no, it's ok to be weird, (aka want to fuck your dog) and you should expect people for who they are!)

and that is just an objectively terrible message. even ignoring the extremely questionable morality of it, it's illegal in most places. and I'm sitting here thinking, this genuinely made it worse. there is nothing good that can come out of that message.


so what do you think, am I a hypocrite?

or does my way of thinking make sense?

LostSpectre said:
Why did you say it doesn't matter if the MC is a shitty rapist if it's for edgy fanservice, but yet you're bitching about an out of context line in a show that's about edgy fanservice? Your implication that this dumpster fire of a show is actually delivering a genuine message that it's OK to be different, including getting lewd with your dog, is completely asinine. That whole conversation is merely backstory for why the guy (dog) likes the girl, because she told him it's OK to be different in regards to him liking flowers/gardening. Absolutely no one (sane, at least) thinks it's OK to do what she's doing, but we don't have to, because it's literally just degenerate ecchi trash, there's no reason to overthink it. I can't even begin to take this shit seriously, she's an absolute freak, and it's hilariously fucking stupid. 

icefirestone23 said:
they will adapt it. Season 2 has been announced. Movie companies always push the same feminist agenda, and have mainstream liberal media smear the fans for any backlash. HBO max even allowed velma. 

LSSJ_Gaming said:
A lot of the time morally questionable protagonists can be interesting, but if the writing is bad it can end up accidentally promoting their negative actions and beliefs as just. Redo of Healer is definitely a good example that you gave. A morally questionable protagonist should have their negative actions judged and challenged whether explicitly or through subtext. A great example would be how Light Yagami from Death Note has his actions of mass murder questioned by the police and L, and while the series doesn't directly tell you "Light is a piece of shit and his ideology is flawed and a utilitarian approach like this leads to so much unnecessary harm."  you have to piece that together yourself even if that is the intended message of the series. Redo of Healer is nowhere near as thoughtful as Death Note with it's use of morally reprehensible actions, only using it for sexual gratification of the audience and not letting the main character have any judgement or consequences for his actions, thus whether intentionally or not justifying them and portraying them as good. As someone who is a woman myself and has known people who have been victims of sexual crimes, seeing this glorification of rape in the anime made me extremely upset. It could have been made more interesting if these scenes were used to show just how insane the protagonist was and not portrayed in a way meant to be titillating to a heterosexual male audience, and have people question if Keyaru truly is any better than the people he is getting revenge on. At least those are my thoughts anyways.

silent_knight98 said:
Dang, what a shame.....and here i was, desperately looking forward to watching the series. Thats why i hate western media  ┐⁠(⁠ ⁠˘⁠_⁠˘⁠)⁠┌

Apolygon2 said:


1. you are absolutely correct, despite the message making it worse for reasons that I will get into, no one in their right minds would take a trashy ecchi seriously enough to actually learn from it.

2. just because no one takes that message seriously it doesn't mean it's not there. the girl telling the mc it's ok to be different and then cutting to the dog version agreeing, is clearly saying "yeah we're both different and that's ok". the flowering is mirroring the the weird dog fetish as a weird quirk that should be excepted. 

listen I have analyzed enough and wrote enough to know what I'm talking about. this is pretty obvious stuff that you choose to ignore because it's from a trashy ecchi, which is fair enough, basically everyone would do that even if the message was actually good. 

but I'm saying is, since the only purpose of a message is to teach the audience, a bad message should result in a worse piece. even if it's something that no would actually listen to.

3. redo of healer is different, because it merely shows those elements in it's story for ecchi and edge. It's not promoting it, it's fetishizing it.

which is fine, the purpose of an ecchi or edgy action is to be hot or .... well edgy.

but a message being morally questionable, is making the message questionable, which means it's not as good of a message. because the whole point of a message is to teach something useful or at least positive. 

Apolygon2 said:
[...]

and the show was pretty garbage, but what pushed me to give it a high 1 instead of a 2/10, was the fact that it has started trying to say "no, it's ok to be weird, (aka want to fuck your dog) and you should expect people for who they are!)

and that is just an objectively terrible message. [...]

WatchTillTandava said:

There are no objectively terrible messages in the first place. 

LostSpectre said:
Absolutely not. Thinking the show is giving you a meaningful message that it's OK to bone your dog is fucking asinine, but you do you. 

Rachiba said:
Those who see something like dog ecchi knew from the start what they were going to consume. It's not that there's no counter-plot, but shitting on the premise or the audience consuming it is what makes it difficult if those negative people are being dishonest or calling attention to themselves. That's why I prefer not to watch said anime because it will just seem strange to me from the beginning.

Regarding the general idea of what is morally questionable in the media, the public has certain tastes and that is why they look for something that they want to consume quickly. Heck, why would I want in every CGDCT a story full of symbolism and criticism instead of just seeing chibi girls going beachwear shopping? Or why watch an ecchi and then complain about the fanservice while glorifying Monogatari or DxD - I don't like to generalize these groups of fans, but unfortunately that experience has touched me.

Apolygon2 said:

I don't think it being an ecchi with a weird premise is a problem, and if you think that you missed my argument completely.

as I said I don't have a problem at all with a story having or even glorifying something like this.


the problem is when it actively goes out of it's way to promote it as a good thing.

which almost never happens, and this dog anime is the only example that I could think of.

Rachiba said:
It doesn't make sense, the current social consensus is supposed to be that what we consider questionable is frowned upon to apply in real life. for several reasons. The fetishism that is wanted to be given in a work of fiction will not guarantee that society will make a change of idea from one day to the next, less when this is consumed by a niche of furry-loving people.

You'd have to judge people in advance for liking things like Gardevoir or anime like Kodomo no Jikan, but it's a waste of time to witch-hunt for the liking of a fictional and unreal character.

I haven't seen the dog anime for the same reason: I'm not really into furries. But I'm not being a hero for not consuming something that apparently promotes bestiality, and this doesn't mean that people care about this - except for a sensitive group of people like the top 1 reviews - when the point of that kind of program it is that the audience is drawn to the heroine of that show.

Yveltal1612 said:

I have read your post and while I get what you mean I have to disagree with you, because the message "It's ok to be weird (or different)" and "accept people for who they are" are not terrible messages at all, in fact they are really nice, positive and good messages. Just because the anime which is telling them to you is weird as fuck or has some questionable content doesn't make them suddenly bad much less objectively bad. 

If the message were "bestiality is ok" then I would absolutely agree with you because that is a bad message and although the anime is indulging in it a lot, so far the show has not said anything along those lines. Not to mention it indulges in less "problematic" fetishes just as much, because that is what the show is about, it's fetish pandering/glorification to the nth degree. 

I absolutely disagree with this statement, there are absolutely and undeniably objectively bad messages. If someone writes a story and that story has a message like, lets say "if you're depressed, don't seek help just kill yourself" then that is an objectively bad (terrible even) message. 

Say-My-Name said:
And that is a subjective opinion. Regarding your take on beastality, I'd say a species that has a worldwide industry dedicated to killing animals en masse, has no right to complain about beastaity.

Apolygon2 said:


it's not about that, it's about the nature of a message in a story.

I couldn't care less about a show like this actually affecting real world. even if it had the best message ever, no one would take it seriously knowing it came from a fetish seasonal ecchi with low production value. 

I'm talking about the quality, in the sense of writing, animation or music.

a message is a part of a piece, and as part of the piece it has a purpose. that purpose being to teach the audience something, it's why a message exists. 

it can be a simple and obvious thing that everyone already knows, or it can be deep philosophical advice that can change a person's entire way of thinking about the world.


so that's why I believe a bad message is a critical problem, not because it would negatively affect the world, but because a message that gives poor or questionable advice/lessons is a bad message.

and since the message is a part of the piece, it being bad makes a worse story. the same way a poorly animated scene, a plot hole, or an inconsistent character arc would make for a worse story.