Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
>be famous for writing oddly similar songs
>replace the vocalist
>release literally the exact same songs but with the new vocalists
Being sat (from fripSide) must be good.
Finally I read a sensible answer as to why, it's that goofy cartoon tone.
In most places most dubbed content is English based (mostly the US), but whereas in most places that would include live-action shows and films, in English-speaking places it means mostly just animation and by extension, the archetypical goofy animation, so there's an asymmetry in experience when it comes to dubbing characters that aren't supposed to sound funny (even if they're still hammy stuff aimed at children).
Obviously I only know a few languages to make a good comparison, but on the other hand I don't speak most languages so they don't count.
So, image dump if you aren't like me and haven't got funny faces spammed in your recommendations everywhere:
And for good measure:
It's not the only thing I've watched but more on that later.
This is particularly sad because he had two entire new anime for his franchises, Dragon Ball and new critical darling (in movie form at least) Sand Land, on the way.
Personally I'm most familiar with his work on Chrno Trigger and some dabbling in Dragon Quest, but I know he played a key role in many anime and game fans' lives.
He was one of those guys that was kind of just eternal in some sense, and I guess he at least ended up living the dream and not dying 'young'.
Also I got a chuckle from seeing the misspelling "Chrno Trigger". (That was the misspelling Chrono Crusade was infamous for!)
As far as I'm concerned that's the actual name of the series.Now that I look at earlier posts I see that I never posted Wilds of Eldraine's animu trailer either, so:
In other stuff, I've actually watched some stuff earlier this year that I'm dragging my feet about posting here.
amines and mangúanime and manga myself this year, though it's been on the back burner lately since i've been really busy with volunteer stuff latelyAnd now I've also finished watching Shangri-La.
Reminder: consuming such media doesn't make you a bad person (words said right before being sneered at).
I'd act smug on the basis that Touhou and its fanworks get no public funding (I assume), but if I'm being honest with myself I'd probably love it if they did.
Edit: Not just Chrono Trigger themes, also Super Mario World, and presumably more to come.
I've come to acknowledge that no art is ultimately entirely devoid of some degree of cultural and thereby political meaning. It's not always present in equal amount, of course -- there's different degrees of blatantness of this influence. And a work's value as propaganda can very well be an axis mostly independent from other attributes of the work, such as its quality.
Fundamentally, even the least nationalistic of works, if appreciated, can be said to contribute positively to the image of a country among its audience, and thus contribute to its social capital. The work can similarly contribute positively to the social capital of ideas that it explores positively, and negatively to those it explores negatively. It can make someone comfortable with, or otherwise produce a reaction (intellectually and/or emotionally) toward, the ideas presented therein. Art is inherently "political" in this sense.
But I don't think that should be a condemnation of art. None of us are politically absolutely neutral beings with no stake in the world we live in. Nor, frankly, should we necessarily be that way. We aren't free of values, nor is art, but that's okay.
In this vein, as I like to say, I think art can be divorced from its creator(s) and even its cultural context, and probably should, for the purpose of just enjoying it, unless one chooses to want to explore those aspects. It should be possible to both, for example, enjoy GATE and reject its use in glorifying the militarization of Japan. (If one is concerned about the effects of one's enjoyment, perhaps one can, say, mention it less, for example.)
Furthermore, I think part of the issue is that we often try to determine the moral "status" of things, probably for the sake of mental convenience. Art and creativity are "good". Propaganda is "bad". And so on. This oversimplification leads to various apparent paradoxes, but besides that, I think it's less useful that it really seems -- what's important about these things isn't whether they're "good" or "bad" (even if we entirely ignore issues of quality or enjoyment). What's important in considering social impacts is, well, exactly what social impacts it has. "Bad" and "good" don't necessarily cancel each other out or override each other; sometimes these aspects can even coexist, in different capacities. Without the distracting need to try to harmonize these "statuses", it's possible to see different aspects of morality in something, how they are differently relevant in different circumstances, and take more practically appropriate actions to appreciate art but also increase understanding of both the good and bad aspects of society in the backdrop of the art. This doesn't mean denying the bad things either -- the video covers serious issues, like atrocity denial -- but I think it's possible to both enjoy art made by people who hold such horrid positions yet also condemn such positions and acknowledge proper historical context.
TL;DR art and intent are separable, and I encourage people to gain proper understanding if they are interested in critically assessing works
I feel like the idea that you can entertain ideas without embracing them has been getting less and less prevalent, and with that comes the perception that viewing/reading propaganda is "dangerous", that getting these ideas in you is a loss in itself, sometimes to the extent that this is true even if you only do so for the purpose of criticism. It follows that the only correct treatment of such works is not engaging with them.
Related to the part about authorial intent: given how infatuated Twitter is with Death of the Author I wonder how much there is to it in actual academia, but looking around I haven't managed to find stuff that goes significantly beyond the original essay. I wonder if its prevalence is internet-only.
I think there is a valid counterargument about engaging with such works, which is that if one is giving them attention socially, that essentially increases their prominence from the viewpoint of others, akin to the saying "all publicity is good publicity." And this applies even to passive advertising, like "now playing" statuses on friends on gaming platforms like Steam. (And of course, there's even more direct benefit to the creator/publisher/seller if one spends money on it.)
FWIW regardless of the prevalence or not of Death of the Author, I've found it useful to think of works both with and without accounting for what I already know about the author's intentions.
I wouldn't count "bad publicity" as a negative, but I hadn't thought of statuses. Technically "it's popular" or even "it's worth my time" are not necessarily good publicity, but without context it certainly seems that way.
Also (despite my first post on the matter) I'm kinda miffed at the part at 2:16:16 where engaging directly in Japanese spaces is "not good enough". Not that I can contradict what he says tho.