Why are today's cartoons more lighthearted?

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
Silvanus said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Regretfully I never watched the Sopranos, at least not every single episode in their entirety, just clips here and there on youtube (still contemplating on buying the whole DVD sets)

And I know a good number of the charcaters well (especially Phil Leotardo) but the main man himself Tony to this day is a big mystery to me.

Regardless I just trying to point out that men internalizing their emotions is underappreciated.
In what sense?

Men have been encouraged to internalise their emotions-- and not to express them-- for centuries. That can lead to shoddy emotional maturity, poor communication with loved ones, and bottled-up frustrations and rage going unaddressed.

Worst of all, the idea that stoicism is an essential part of masculinity-- the idea that men shouldn't express themselves, and should "suck it up"-- can cause bloody turmoil for the men themselves, who are then stuck with the inner misery, because they cannot get the emotional support they want or need.

Tony Soprano's feelings towards his uncle Junior swing wildly between near-violent fury and self-destructive guilt, precisely because he never came to terms with the terrible impact his uncle had on him, and Tony batted away his therapist's attempts to talk to him about it. He couldn't open up, and it caused him pain, and damaged any future relationship he might have had with his uncle.
In a charcaterization standpoint.

Exactly why I think its underappreciated. I feel more for men who choose not to express their greif and emotion and try to remain stoic. Like Michael Coreleone especially after what he did in the 2nd movie's ending. And when he did break in the 3rd movie it was all the more powerful and I feel for him more.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
You seem to be really hung up on the wrong things. For one, Walmart pays minimum wage for entry-level jobs. It doesn't just pay $5/hr. Just like a ton of other businesses. Are they all just as bad as Walmart?
Given that so many of them live on food stamps (taxpayer funded, by the by) inspite of their efforts? Yeah. You'd need to ask those who suffer it, of course... but I would say being a wage slave is pretty awful.

Hence why I did everything to stop working and never have to worry about being thrown on the street, or getting a bad case of the flu, or struggling to feed myself. Been there, done that. Once was enough. Fortune, not skill, allowed me to crawl myself up the social ladder.

When you have people for whom only luck can save them from eminently avoidable hardship you have to question whether the system isn't rotten to the core.

Secondly, you seem to have a problem with the very idea of investing. This is honestly kind of silly. Business is mostly about investment after all. You invest money into something you think will profit you and hope for nice returns. And finally, you got this idea that even though you start a business and put your hard work into it to make it hugely profitable for you, that money still doesn't belong to you. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
I have no problems with enterprise. But the fact remains no one buys liberty with only sweat. They do so with blood, money, or another's bent back. Pick one. That's observed in any culture on this planet, observable throughout history.

Enterprise is not merely money. That's idiotic.

Corporations do not often pay taxes because they don't leave money made just sitting there. If they did, they would pay taxes... instead they spend as much as possible back into the firm and giving out more generous div yields, or expanding their public presence to generate further interest of their growth. Either that or they pull out the 'depreciation clause' in Australia, writing off gains to historical losses (even if responsible for said losses) when they also, back then, axed thousands of jobs. Like Qantas...

By the by, Alan Joyce still kept his pay cheque...

Your vaguely alien idea of the value of sweat withstanding, if one's sweat was truly cherished those who sweat wouldn't need welfare.

It's also not something you're supposed to stick with. You're expected to move on to... Something. Something that will earn you more money at least as you gain more experience and/or education. You are paid according to your economic value. And if you sit at the bottom your whole life, you can't expect to live like an executive. That's just how it is. Demonizing the upper class just because they're upper class is childish. And I get that some executives these days are total douches, but we're talking about a properly functioning capitalist society. Not a poorly functioning one that we're living in now.
So all those people who can't move on?

Taking care of a sick family member? Left with a bad debt? A criminal record? Mental health problems? Disabled or psychologically damaged from a war without end in the Middle East or beyond that you can't function in civil society?

Can happen to anyone.

And finally, but just as importantly, employment is AT WILL. You're not forced to work at Walmart.
Yeah... they can be homeless, go without medicine ... seriously, "freedom". Just like all those POWs ... I mean they could go to the camps, or they could have picked up a brick, taken out a guard, tried to get their gun, and be shot in the attempt.

Technically no one is *forced* to do anything. Any type of labour requires some degree of at least complicity.

It's merely a question of how much you actually ransom to coerce and how stupid people are to believe that simply being able to starve your pride or that magically life problems won't ever chain people to a job where they still need welfare to survive and give them little other ways to excel or achieve more somehow represents one's acceptable liberty.

To flip it around ... there are better ways. No one should feel compelled to give of themselves and receive less than their productivity *without* the option of profitting directly through control over what that labour should look like.

Hence why workers should receive shares AND a pay cheque so that they can collectively vote for change at AGMs. Seems far more "freedom" and "democratic" to me. If you're going to rip off people's productivity, give them a reward based on how well the company is ripping them off, at least.

Should make capitalists happy, surely? After all... everybody starts looking like a real one this way. Yay capitalism, right? Who could object to more capitalists? Can't possibly see what might happen to a capitalist system where workers get an equal volume of shares as to any other interests...
I think you're misunderstanding me here and we actually agree more than you think. I never once said that our current economic, government, and even medical systems aren't corrupted. In fact I said quite the opposite. You're listing all these things as if I'm denying them and I'm actually saying, "Yes, you're right. It needs improvement/an overhaul. I agree." What I was defending though is merely the idea of capitalism and how it does work and work well compared to other systems. It's not that capitalism failed us, it's that we failed capitalism. The causes of this are myriad, from the destruction of families as a vital social support unit to our over-reliance on the government for social welfare programs to, as previously stated, the government's new reluctance to break up monopolies. We treat our veterans like crap too.

Think of it like this. Let's say you bought a brand new Honda Civic. As you drive it, it of course accumulates miles and therefore, wear and tear. After about 7 years let's say, a spark plug needs replacing. Or hell, maybe the transmission's totally ruined. Does that mean the Honda Civic is a terrible car? No. Of course not. It's just what happens. And thus it is the same with capitalism. Just because it works well doesn't mean it doesn't require maintenance and tuning once in a while.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Regardless I just trying to point out that men internalizing their emotions is underappreciated.
It's 'underappreciated' because it's the statusquo for both media in real life. No one gets accolades for following the beaten path. The reason people prop up and praise shows like Steven Universe is because they break the mold.

Please don't praise or idolize this kind of behavior. There's a reason men have a higher rate of suicide and it's exactly what you're saying is a good thing.
I feel we are going way off topic with what we were discussing at first. And that its toxic masculinity for me to keep negative emotions and grief hidden and remain stoic or grim.

I think thats more to do with humility/pride in general than masculinity. How is this more associated with males than females? I am certain females also have the same problem with hidding their emotions to toughen up and harden themselves.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,710
2,231
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Samtemdo8 said:
In a charcaterization standpoint.

Exactly why I think its underappreciated. I feel more for men who choose not to express their greif and emotion and try to remain stoic. Like Michael Coreleone especially after what he did in the 2nd movie's ending. And when he did break in the 3rd movie it was all the more powerful and I feel for him more.
Just checking in on something - do you think stoicism means not talking? I think its not complaining, but that isnt the same as not discussing your emotions. I'd also think that stoicism is more about not having that emotion and grief in reponse to things. Not reacting to situations, including postive ones. You dont feel happy or sad. This is something different to choosing not to express emotions.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,710
2,231
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Arnoxthe1 said:
It's also not something you're supposed to stick with. You're expected to move on to... Something. Something that will earn you more money at least as you gain more experience and/or education. You are paid according to your economic value. And if you sit at the bottom your whole life, you can't expect to live like an executive. That's just how it is. Demonizing the upper class just because they're upper class is childish. And I get that some executives these days are total douches, but we're talking about a properly functioning capitalist society. Not a poorly functioning one that we're living in now.
I think you're misunderstanding me here and we actually agree more than you think. I never once said that our current economic, government, and even medical systems aren't corrupted. In fact I said quite the opposite. You're listing all these things as if I'm denying them and I'm actually saying, "Yes, you're right. It needs improvement/an overhaul. I agree." What I was defending though is merely the idea of capitalism and how it does work and work well compared to other systems. It's not that capitalism failed us, it's that we failed capitalism. The causes of this are myriad, from the destruction of families as a vital social support unit to our over-reliance on the government for social welfare programs to, as previously stated, the government's new reluctance to break up monopolies. We treat our veterans like crap too.

Think of it like this. Let's say you bought a brand new Honda Civic. As you drive it, it of course accumulates miles and therefore, wear and tear. After about 7 years let's say, a spark plug needs replacing. Or hell, maybe the transmission's totally ruined. Does that mean the Honda Civic is a terrible car? No. Of course not. It's just what happens. And thus it is the same with capitalism. Just because it works well doesn't mean it doesn't require maintenance and tuning once in a while.
I think that the Communism experiment clearly showed that there were a bunch of institutions that make Capitalism work. Prices, Limited Government, Democracy, Rule of Law are outside of Capitalism generating the feedback loops to make things work. Without that, Communism become rife with despotism, which is the complete opposite of communisms aims.

The people get angry with the upper class becuase they are the ones deciding on your economic value. Your value has nothing to do with how much you contribute or your ability. Despite what is told to us from an early age. Capitalism is supposed to be about freedom but it is not. If you want anger to go away from the upper classes, then we need to start telling the truth about Capitalism.

Lastly, my personal problem with Capitalism, as I've already stated, is that it only works with instition. All these institutions, including Rule of Law, are Socialism. Rule of Law is a control on the populace that neagively affects people's ability to earn. Its just that it provides more benefit than what is lost. When discussing public policy, both side of the spectrum still dont talk about negatives of their proposals. Yes the opposition tell us their point of view but its all related to their ideology.

Take Trickle-Down economics. Many see it was either working or not working. Personally, I see it as sort of working but it mixes with a bunch of other issues that mess up the results. There has been more of a focus on giving rewards like cars instead of wages. Is the upturn of the eighties related to Reagan or just the swing of the business cycle (you cant have a poor economy forever). Maybe the upswing started with Carter but the delay was too long. Giving more money to the poor reduces the need for stealing but they are seen as lazy and are an easy cop-out for blame. As a percentage, its seems that trickle-down favours the rich still by a long shot. And in times of crisis, the poor are the ones who pay. The rich just got richer.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,045
3,484
118
Country
United Kingdom
Samtemdo8 said:
In a charcaterization standpoint.

Exactly why I think its underappreciated. I feel more for men who choose not to express their greif and emotion and try to remain stoic. Like Michael Coreleone especially after what he did in the 2nd movie's ending. And when he did break in the 3rd movie it was all the more powerful and I feel for him more.
Right, so you enjoy it as a plot point?

I think I (and perhaps undeadsuitor) were under the impression you were admiring it as a trait, in fiction or otherwise. If that's not the case, we might have been talking at cross purposes.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
...Right, I think the thread has veered off into non-topic land a bit too long, let's get back on track, shall we?

(Unless y'all wanna complain about economics some more,then fine, I see how it is.)

To me, it seems that the types of cartoons coming out tend to be based on trends. In the early 2000s, action cartoons were the thing, now episodic comedies have made their return.

Unfortunately, the kid's cartoon channels seem to be nothing but this (and in some cases, drowned out by tween comedy sitcoms), with little to no variety.

Then again, maybe I'm just biased...
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
CrazyGirl17 said:
...Right, I think the thread has veered off into non-topic land a bit too long, let's get back on track, shall we?

(Unless y'all wanna complain about economics some more,then fine, I see how it is.)

To me, it seems that the types of cartoons coming out tend to be based on trends. In the early 2000s, action cartoons were the thing, now episodic comedies have made their return.

Unfortunately, the kid's cartoon channels seem to be nothing but this (and in some cases, drowned out by tween comedy sitcoms), with little to no variety.

Then again, maybe I'm just biased...
Yeah, call me old fashioned but I miss the days of action cartoons.

Heck Dexter's Lab was more action packed than Teen Titans GO!