The problem with making sociopathic human-mimic demons that use speech and social pantomime primarily as a way of placating potential prey is that it’s really easy to project all sorts of exclusive ideologies onto it
I think it’s totally understandable that this makes a lot of people really uncomfortable given how much racist propaganda it mirrors. That’s a pretty good reason not to have the emoji IMO.
idk, it just seems like a strange reason to completely hate everything a fantastic story stands for. we have plenty of dragon ball emotes despite the fact that that series has a ton of random sexual assault as humor from the main character’s beloved teacher (and various other characters), and that’s way worse than anything in frieren
tbh the whole thing just feels like contrarianism to me. oh yeah, you like this wholesome refreshing fantasy story about the fleeting connections we make as mortal beings? im gonna find a way to make it sound racist so i can judge you for that
There’s a refreshing fantasy story about the fleeting impermanence of life that’s marred by the author’s intentional-or-otherwise take that because some sentient fantasy races are just born evil due to biology they must be exterminated. That’s not subtext, just the plain text.
There are cool/good parts of the show I like and there are parts that I don’t like and take issue with. It’s weird that you’ve just straight up invented a guy to strawman and squash all the nuance here.
Why is it that every time someone’s even a little bit critical of the treats here no one has the humility to say “Huh, I didn’t think of it like that, maybe I’ll consider your point of view?” instead of “Quit showing off your media literacy degree you wokescold!” It’s exhausting.
I thought UlyssesT ended Treatlerism single-handedly when he went at it with the Game of Thrones fans on Hexbear all those years ago but guess not. Permanent Cultural Revolution! No Treat is Above Criticism!
Edit: Hell, I’m not even opposed to Frieren emojis or anything. Do what y’all want, even if I won’t use them
Every struggle session always boils down to one side saying “This treat is potentially problematic sometimes, but you’re not a bad person if you still enjoy it.” and then the other side always going “HOW DARE YOU?! FUCK YOU! STOP CALLING EVERYONE YOU DON’T LIKE A NAZI! THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH MY TREATS AND YOU’RE A CUCK WOKESCOLD IF YOU SAY THERE IS!”
I thought UlyssesT ended Treatlerism single-handedly when he went at it with the Game of Thrones fans on Hexbear all those years ago but guess not. Permanent Cultural Revolution! No Treat is Above Criticism!
Ironically you’ve constructed a strawman of a strawman in order to dismiss what I said without actually engaging with it. I directly addressed the criticism leveled against the show and explained why I think it’s inaccurate and invalid, and you have added nothing to the conversation at all.
The criticism was “some sentient fantasy races are just born evil due to biology they must be exterminated.” I countered that the people leveling this criticism never seem to take issue with any of the other monsters who need to be killed in self-defense because they are harmful, despite being identical in all but aesthetics. The only difference between the monster that looks like a treasure chest and eats you when you try to open it and the monster who looks like a dude and eats you when you try to share tea with it is the shape. If those ones are racist, then the entire show is full of nonstop racism from beginning to end it should be unacceptable to claim to like any part of it.
You’re saying with so many words that I have no media literacy. Maybe that’s true. But please tell me then-
Why is framing the antagonists in this way necessary?
What themes or aspects of the story does this explore, that is integral to the core theme of exploring the beauty of the fleeting nature of life?
What does the story gain from including a scene where our heroic protagonist implores her party to… kill a little girl demon? And then why does the story go out of its way to justify the protagonist’s point of view as ultimately the only correct one?
(Hell, just straight up- why is the “monster” a little girl? Like, why did the author choose to portray the monster as a little girl? What was the purpose of this entire detour in the story? Was it really necessary to draw “nits make lice” comparisons, intentional or not?)
In all your other examples, the monsters are unthinking magical beasts, and no one is going to quibble about the ethics of self-defense in a wild animal attack. The demons on the other hand are presented as a civilized race capable of higher thought, except that they are biologically predisposed towards lying and magic fascism, so the only rational action on encountering one is to exterminate it.
If they’re just monsters, why does the author have to go out of their way to present them as civilized sentient beings? Can’t they just be monsters? What narrative purpose does this serve? Why did the author choose to write the antagonists like this?
Show: This is a monster that pretends to be a harmless stranger. It’s ok to kill it because it’s trying to kill you.
Comrade, do you not see the similarities with what you wrote here to what Israeli’s say about Palestinians?
Why is framing the antagonists in this way necessary?
What themes or aspects of the story does this explore, that is integral to the core theme of exploring the beauty of the fleeting nature of life?
I went into this a bit elsewhere in the thread, but I think the point is that this is a setting where the innate human desire to empathize, to form bonds with others, can be a weakness. I don’t think it’s trying to make a philosophical point about that though, it’s not saying that we should all be cold hardened killers who don’t trust. It’s just exploring what that would be like, the challenge and the conflict which emerge from humanity being part of a food chain which contains creatures that hunt us using our empathy as a weakness. The same way any of the antagonists challenge the protagonists. It’s an interesting issue for the characters to have to overcome.
What does the story gain from including a scene where our heroic protagonist implores her party to… kill a little girl demon? And then why does the story go out of its way to justify the protagonist’s point of view as ultimately the only correct one?
I think it’s there just to enhance the immersion in the challenge the characters are facing. When you or I look at that particular monster, we feel the same empathy all of the ignorant people in the story feel. You and I would definitely be killed, successfully hunted, by these demons if we existed in that world. That’s why they’re a dangerous challenge for the protagonists to face, that’s why they’re scary and believable as a problem. The world in which the story takes place is exceedingly dangerous and, even though the protagonists are practically gods, there are plenty of things which could conceivably kill them, and you and I can fully understand exactly why it would work because it would work on us. Is there no value in crafting a believably dangerous monster?
In all your other examples, the monsters are unthinking magical beasts,
As far as we’re told in the story, there is no difference between the chest mimics, and the random wolves, and the dragons, and the demons. They are all equally thinking or unthinking as you prefer to interpret their behavior. They are all merciless hunters who will kill you if you don’t kill them first. The difference is in their appearance and in their strategy, not in their internal experience.
If they’re just monsters, why does the author have to go out of their way to present them as civilized sentient beings? Can’t they just be monsters?
I would argue the author goes extremely far out of their way to prove them not to be civilized beings. They are just monsters. They just want to eat you. They literally do not know the meanings of the words they say, or have any concept of the empathy which those words exploit. They are no more civilized or more sentient than the mimics or the ghost-mimics or the wolves or the giant plant. They just evolved into the niche of looking like they are, because that makes people easier to hunt.
Comrade, do you not see the similarities with what you wrote here to what Israeli’s say about Palestinians?
We’ve all heard fascists compare various groups of people to animals. Is it therefore unacceptable to compare horses to donkeys? If I say horses are very much like donkeys, it’s equivalent to fascists saying certain groups of humans are like donkeys? I just don’t see it. Fascists say all kinds of shit that isn’t true. That doesn’t make it untrue when you say things that sound superficially similar but are fundamentally different because they regard completely different subjects. I don’t see how this logic can’t be used to negate all comparisons between any two things anywhere. The US can’t be like the Nazis, because that sounds awfully similar to how fascists say the USSR was like the Nazis. Is that not logically the same argument you’re making here? If not, what is the difference? Israelis can say shit about Palestinians that isn’t true and that same thing could be true if they were saying it of a different subject. If an Israeli said Palestinians are purple or green fruits often used to make wine, it wouldn’t suddenly be wrong to say that grapes are purple or green fruits often used to make wine. They’re different things. Palestinians aren’t demons, they aren’t a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. Demons in Frieren are a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. They’re not Palestinians. Where is the connection?
It’s more like “this wholesome refreshing fantasy story about the fleeting connections we make as mortal beings that is really compelling has this one really uncomfortable part that is really poorly thought out and sticks out like a sore thumb.”
A lot like the DBZ SA stuff come to think of it. A problematic element in an otherwise good story that some people can overlook, ignore or recontextualise but other people can’t and it creates friction around that.
I will say I am at least glad that the frieren author (amoung others) withdrew their series from mangaone after finding out about the whole Shogakukan scandal (hiring and protecting pdos / rpists)
It’s a damn travesty that we don’t have Frieren emojis
The show creates a struggle session every time it gets mentioned.
The problem with making sociopathic human-mimic demons that use speech and social pantomime primarily as a way of placating potential prey is that it’s really easy to project all sorts of exclusive ideologies onto it
I think it’s totally understandable that this makes a lot of people really uncomfortable given how much racist propaganda it mirrors. That’s a pretty good reason not to have the emoji IMO.
idk, it just seems like a strange reason to completely hate everything a fantastic story stands for. we have plenty of dragon ball emotes
despite the fact that that series has a ton of random sexual assault as humor from the main character’s beloved teacher (and various other characters), and that’s way worse than anything in frieren
tbh the whole thing just feels like contrarianism to me. oh yeah, you like this wholesome refreshing fantasy story about the fleeting connections we make as mortal beings? im gonna find a way to make it sound racist so i can judge you for that
There’s a refreshing fantasy story about the fleeting impermanence of life that’s marred by the author’s intentional-or-otherwise take that because some sentient fantasy races are just born evil due to biology they must be exterminated. That’s not subtext, just the plain text.
There are cool/good parts of the show I like and there are parts that I don’t like and take issue with. It’s weird that you’ve just straight up invented a guy to strawman and squash all the nuance here.
Why is it that every time someone’s even a little bit critical of the treats here no one has the humility to say “Huh, I didn’t think of it like that, maybe I’ll consider your point of view?” instead of “Quit showing off your media literacy degree you wokescold!” It’s exhausting.
I thought UlyssesT ended Treatlerism single-handedly when he went at it with the Game of Thrones fans on Hexbear all those years ago but guess not. Permanent Cultural Revolution! No Treat is Above Criticism!
Edit: Hell, I’m not even opposed to Frieren emojis or anything. Do what y’all want, even if I won’t use them
Every struggle session always boils down to one side saying “This treat is potentially problematic sometimes, but you’re not a bad person if you still enjoy it.” and then the other side always going “HOW DARE YOU?! FUCK YOU! STOP CALLING EVERYONE YOU DON’T LIKE A NAZI! THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH MY TREATS AND YOU’RE A CUCK WOKESCOLD IF YOU SAY THERE IS!”
When Hexbear needed him most, he vanished.
I just want you to actually have any media literacy if you’re going to criticize something.
Show: This is a wild animal that wants to attack you in the wilderness and eat you. It’s ok to kill it because it’s trying to kill you.
You: Ok.
Show: This is a monster that pretends to be a treasure chest. It’s okay to kill it because it’s trying to kill you.
You: Ok.
Show: This is a monster that pretends to be the ghosts of your loved ones. It’s ok to kill it because it’s trying to kill you.
You: Ok.
Show: This is a monster that pretends to be a harmless stranger. It’s ok to kill it because it’s trying to kill you.
You: What the fuck, how dare you?
Can you actually please listen to people and stop strawmanning them?
Ironically you’ve constructed a strawman of a strawman in order to dismiss what I said without actually engaging with it. I directly addressed the criticism leveled against the show and explained why I think it’s inaccurate and invalid, and you have added nothing to the conversation at all.
The criticism was “some sentient fantasy races are just born evil due to biology they must be exterminated.” I countered that the people leveling this criticism never seem to take issue with any of the other monsters who need to be killed in self-defense because they are harmful, despite being identical in all but aesthetics. The only difference between the monster that looks like a treasure chest and eats you when you try to open it and the monster who looks like a dude and eats you when you try to share tea with it is the shape. If those ones are racist, then the entire show is full of nonstop racism from beginning to end it should be unacceptable to claim to like any part of it.
Not helping your credibility with shit like this
Go away.
You’re saying with so many words that I have no media literacy. Maybe that’s true. But please tell me then-
Why is framing the antagonists in this way necessary?
What themes or aspects of the story does this explore, that is integral to the core theme of exploring the beauty of the fleeting nature of life?
What does the story gain from including a scene where our heroic protagonist implores her party to… kill a little girl demon? And then why does the story go out of its way to justify the protagonist’s point of view as ultimately the only correct one?
(Hell, just straight up- why is the “monster” a little girl? Like, why did the author choose to portray the monster as a little girl? What was the purpose of this entire detour in the story? Was it really necessary to draw “nits make lice” comparisons, intentional or not?)
In all your other examples, the monsters are unthinking magical beasts, and no one is going to quibble about the ethics of self-defense in a wild animal attack. The demons on the other hand are presented as a civilized race capable of higher thought, except that they are biologically predisposed towards lying and magic fascism, so the only rational action on encountering one is to exterminate it.
If they’re just monsters, why does the author have to go out of their way to present them as civilized sentient beings? Can’t they just be monsters? What narrative purpose does this serve? Why did the author choose to write the antagonists like this?
Comrade, do you not see the similarities with what you wrote here to what Israeli’s say about Palestinians?
I went into this a bit elsewhere in the thread, but I think the point is that this is a setting where the innate human desire to empathize, to form bonds with others, can be a weakness. I don’t think it’s trying to make a philosophical point about that though, it’s not saying that we should all be cold hardened killers who don’t trust. It’s just exploring what that would be like, the challenge and the conflict which emerge from humanity being part of a food chain which contains creatures that hunt us using our empathy as a weakness. The same way any of the antagonists challenge the protagonists. It’s an interesting issue for the characters to have to overcome.
I think it’s there just to enhance the immersion in the challenge the characters are facing. When you or I look at that particular monster, we feel the same empathy all of the ignorant people in the story feel. You and I would definitely be killed, successfully hunted, by these demons if we existed in that world. That’s why they’re a dangerous challenge for the protagonists to face, that’s why they’re scary and believable as a problem. The world in which the story takes place is exceedingly dangerous and, even though the protagonists are practically gods, there are plenty of things which could conceivably kill them, and you and I can fully understand exactly why it would work because it would work on us. Is there no value in crafting a believably dangerous monster?
As far as we’re told in the story, there is no difference between the chest mimics, and the random wolves, and the dragons, and the demons. They are all equally thinking or unthinking as you prefer to interpret their behavior. They are all merciless hunters who will kill you if you don’t kill them first. The difference is in their appearance and in their strategy, not in their internal experience.
I would argue the author goes extremely far out of their way to prove them not to be civilized beings. They are just monsters. They just want to eat you. They literally do not know the meanings of the words they say, or have any concept of the empathy which those words exploit. They are no more civilized or more sentient than the mimics or the ghost-mimics or the wolves or the giant plant. They just evolved into the niche of looking like they are, because that makes people easier to hunt.
We’ve all heard fascists compare various groups of people to animals. Is it therefore unacceptable to compare horses to donkeys? If I say horses are very much like donkeys, it’s equivalent to fascists saying certain groups of humans are like donkeys? I just don’t see it. Fascists say all kinds of shit that isn’t true. That doesn’t make it untrue when you say things that sound superficially similar but are fundamentally different because they regard completely different subjects. I don’t see how this logic can’t be used to negate all comparisons between any two things anywhere. The US can’t be like the Nazis, because that sounds awfully similar to how fascists say the USSR was like the Nazis. Is that not logically the same argument you’re making here? If not, what is the difference? Israelis can say shit about Palestinians that isn’t true and that same thing could be true if they were saying it of a different subject. If an Israeli said Palestinians are purple or green fruits often used to make wine, it wouldn’t suddenly be wrong to say that grapes are purple or green fruits often used to make wine. They’re different things. Palestinians aren’t demons, they aren’t a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. Demons in Frieren are a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. They’re not Palestinians. Where is the connection?
It’s more like “this wholesome refreshing fantasy story about the fleeting connections we make as mortal beings that is really compelling has this one really uncomfortable part that is really poorly thought out and sticks out like a sore thumb.”
A lot like the DBZ SA stuff come to think of it. A problematic element in an otherwise good story that some people can overlook, ignore or recontextualise but other people can’t and it creates friction around that.
I will say I am at least glad that the frieren author (amoung others) withdrew their series from mangaone after finding out about the whole Shogakukan scandal (hiring and protecting pdos / rpists)
And it gets dumber every time lmao
People didn’t struggle about it the last time I said it’s not fascist but maybe people just didn’t wanna argue with me
you were over your struggle session quarterly limit
?? what the fuck but that’s why i pay for hexbear premium???
should’ve completed the battlepass, there was an extra struggle session token at the end
we should add some to create more discourse (struggle sessions)