I really like the cynicism of this universe. I'm sick of the ever repeated fantasies in film and TV about benevolent powers that be. It smacks of propaganda and is deeply unsatisfying when real...
I really like the cynicism of this universe.
I'm sick of the ever repeated fantasies in film and TV about benevolent powers that be. It smacks of propaganda and is deeply unsatisfying when real life is so full of power hungry and easily corruptable narcissists.
Seeing characters in The Boys universe, at every level of the hierarchies, fighting for/against these systems and for what they want and believe in, evil bastards or not, is refreshingly realistic and cathartic to watch.
I'm looking firward to seaso 4 and rather hoping there will be more supplimental one-shot side shows like Gen V in the future too!
I really like this show and universe. Can't wait for the next season. Curious how it picks up after Gen V and who those new characters in the trailer are. Don't really have much to say other than...
I really like this show and universe. Can't wait for the next season. Curious how it picks up after Gen V and who those new characters in the trailer are. Don't really have much to say other than that, but the few comments on here felt a bit one-sided
I think the tone is appropriate but I can see why people might be turn off by the violence. It sucks that it probably won’t hit syndication cause you would probably be able to find a version...
I think the tone is appropriate but I can see why people might be turn off by the violence. It sucks that it probably won’t hit syndication cause you would probably be able to find a version that’s more censored/less bloody? Like some HBO shows have.
I'm not against it in principle, but I hate how they seem to stick to an overly predictable strict schedule of having one shockingly violent scene per episode. It's so routine that you know if the...
I'm not against it in principle, but I hate how they seem to stick to an overly predictable strict schedule of having one shockingly violent scene per episode. It's so routine that you know if the episode is most of the way through without it happening yet that a twist is going to happen any minute now with one.
I'm with you, everything in moderation. Like, in season 1 there was a genuine fear of all the violence because you got the feeling that these things could easily happen to the main characters. It...
I'm with you, everything in moderation. Like, in season 1 there was a genuine fear of all the violence because you got the feeling that these things could easily happen to the main characters. It was gore perfectly used to build tension. But now, four seasons in, and so many bloody fights have happened between the main show and Gen V, it's just an expectation that the main cast gets blood-soaked.
In something like Ash vs. Evil Dead the over-the-top blood and gore works great because the show is meant to be silly and gorey. But, when it comes to The Boys where there's a large power imbalance between the humans and the supes, part of the experience is that we know how underpowered "The Boys" really are when compared to their opponents. Having regular scenes where everyone is evaporated into a red mist except them takes away the tension.
Not that my enjoyment of the show is really lessened, I still kinda love it actually, I'm more thinking that the tension created by the gore in the first season was the hook to create a series more about it's social commentary than the danger it's characters put themselves in. And I think the commentary is strong, so it keeps it going. Not to say the characters and their drama isn't still fun too.
At this point, I'm mostly kind of semi-hate watching to finally see Homelander's demise. Because the universe is just seven kinds of cynical, and revels in gore and shock and evil triumphing. I've...
At this point, I'm mostly kind of semi-hate watching to finally see Homelander's demise. Because the universe is just seven kinds of cynical, and revels in gore and shock and evil triumphing.
I've looked through some summaries and discussions of the source material, and apparently that's exactly the tone Garth Ennis wanted, went for, and got. He basically just sat down and repeatedly asked himself "what if the most greedy, selfish, narcissistic, power-hungry dipshits either invented supers, were supers, or wanted to use/control supers?"
Because boy oh boy, that's what "The Boys" universe is. Everyone in it except the occasional little person, is just ... in some ways, it's kind of written unrealistically. Is written and developed in a way that doesn't quite hold true to its stated themes and character intents.
Because if Homelander and the others actually were as narcissistic and megalomaniacal as they're written (and act until they hit the story bumpers), Homelander would be ruling rather than just sulking that his follower counts aren't higher. Homelander, as written, would have pretty much vaporized at least the entire American government until he got to the people who slavishly fawned over his every whim, and then sat on his throne of skulls basking in the glory of being the God in Charge.
Or, alternately, at least some of the other heroes who are just like Homelander would be actively plotting against him. Wanting him out of the way or bending the knee to them. As Season 3 revealed, Homelander actually isn't a god; he is physically fallible. He can be beaten. The other on-screen heroes are apparently just terrified of him; too scared to band together and plot his downfall to clear the way for their own rise to power.
Apparently the only people in the entire onscreen Boys universe with any sense of morality or justice are "The Boys", excepting Butcher himself. Starlight I think is on that list though, but that's apparently it. Everyone else either worships supers, lives in abject fear of them praying never to be noticed, or is a power broker actively angling to manipulate supers to further nefarious goals.
It's kind of exhausting. It's sort of like a longer, more drawn out version of that period between Infinity War and Endgame. After IW it was just so depressing, the way IW ended. Endgame "fixed" it, and brought the happy ending, but waiting for it to arrive was ... something. The Boys is similar, except it's gone on for a lot longer than a year.
And I think it's not due to wrap up anytime particularly soon either? The comic ran 72 issues, and I'm not sure where the show is in relation at this point. Halfway through? Most standard TV contracts are signed for six seasons, so presumably Amazon would want to wrap it without needing to delve into a seventh (and pay the fee Antony Starr (especially) would demand to extend), but that still means all this will go on until probably 2028?
That's a fucklot of cynicism. Kill Homelander, give us some release. Because he's one of the most evil characters in visual storytelling right now. Darth Vader is just a pissed off teenager, and Tony Soprano was cuddly as long as you didn't piss him off. And even then Tony had rules. A code. Hannibal fucking Lector had a code, some twisted sense of honor or rules.
Homelander is just psychopathic Superman who won't actually act as he wants because the author (and screenwriters now) want to play with us rather than have the character truly do what he longs to anyway. Rule, absolutely.
I believe I "get" most of what Ennis wanted to explore. It's just all of that subject matter, those themes (along with Invincible) are just exhausting.
I really, really hope Gunn brings back Superman in DC. The Big Blue Boy Scout. Someone who will fight for what's right, not what's convenient. Someone who's fun to root for, rather than someone you watch in terror while you wait for other characters to deal with.
Addressing a few points here. The show isn't really adapting the comics, it's more loosely inspired. The other heroes don't know that he can be beaten, and it's a very risky proposition to try...
Addressing a few points here.
The comic ran 72 issues, and I'm not sure where the show is in relation at this point.
The show isn't really adapting the comics, it's more loosely inspired.
The other on-screen heroes are apparently just terrified of him; too scared to band together and plot his downfall to clear the way for their own rise to power.
The other heroes don't know that he can be beaten, and it's a very risky proposition to try because if you fail that's it.
Because if Homelander and the others actually were as narcissistic and megalomaniacal as they're written (and act until they hit the story bumpers), Homelander would be ruling rather than just sulking that his follower counts aren't higher. Homelander, as written, would have pretty much vaporized at least the entire American government until he got to the people who slavishly fawned over his every whim, and then sat on his throne of skulls basking in the glory of being the God in Charge.
I don't think this would be the case. Homelander is a complex character, and one of his motivations is to be seen as "good" and a "hero", rather than a mass-murderer.
I do think Homelander's arc is ready to be resolved though... Season 3 felt like it was spinning it's wheels.
I don't know if I agree that Homelander "as-written" would be that decisive. I think they've done a good job writing him as a human-with-superpowers as opposed to just a superhuman. He was...
I don't know if I agree that Homelander "as-written" would be that decisive. I think they've done a good job writing him as a human-with-superpowers as opposed to just a superhuman. He was traumatized throughout his childhood and now has a crippling fear of abandonment, and no matter how powerful he is he's been unwilling to risk his public, lovable image to get more of what he wants. Obviously they mentality is changing over the course of the show, though.
I do think many parts of The Boys world are more cynical than is realistic, but that world is meant to parody reality, not reflect it perfectly. Exaggeration is expected. And it makes sense that the main cast are the only (mostly) good natured people because the conceit of the story is it's a David vs Goliath tale of the small team against the evil organization. That's just how the story is framed. This isn't a narrative where the good guys go around recruiting people to their cause to charge the evil army; they pursue subterfuge. So logically it makes sense that most of the minor characters they meet are evil in some way. I'm not saying it's executed perfectly or beyond criticism, I just think there is a reasonable narrative justification for most characters being shitty.
I generally like the show even though I agree that sometimes it's too much. But I also think it's one of the most fun to discuss shows in recent years.
Honestly, this may just not to be the kind of show for you. My favorite part of the show is Homelander - Anthony's performance is spectacular, and Homelander is just so much fun to watch. I think...
Honestly, this may just not to be the kind of show for you. My favorite part of the show is Homelander - Anthony's performance is spectacular, and Homelander is just so much fun to watch.
Homelander, as written, would have pretty much vaporized at least the entire American government until he got to the people who slavishly fawned over his every whim, and then sat on his throne of skulls basking in the glory of being the God in Charge.
I think you're kinda missing part of his character. He is a man-child, emphasis on child. He doesn't love himself, he loves the himself loved by other people. You can see that clearly in the last scene with Stan. Much of his character "development" throughout the seasons is testing boundaries - learning that he can get away with more and more. He's not some omnipotent evil being - he's really quite pathetic, which is what makes him interesting over his comic version, which is more what you described (and he does eventually do what you suggests).
I really, really hope Gunn brings back Superman in DC. The Big Blue Boy Scout. Someone who will fight for what's right, not what's convenient. Someone who's fun to root for, rather than someone you watch in terror while you wait for other characters to deal with.
I mean, do you really have a lack of superhero or heroic fiction in general where the main characters are fundamentally just? That's the vast majority of fiction. Part of this revival of morally grey TV shows is in reaction to being too much of that kind of show.
The Boys could also stand to tone down the social commentary. Why can't we just have a nice show where the good guys always win, no one dies, and it says nothing meaningful about the world?...
The Boys could also stand to tone down the social commentary. Why can't we just have a nice show where the good guys always win, no one dies, and it says nothing meaningful about the world? Like... A marvel movie... But on TV!
IMO that's a bad law. The problem with using sarcasm online is Poe's law often comes into play. And since there actually are a lot of people online who genuinely do complain about...
IMO that's a bad law. The problem with using sarcasm online is Poe's law often comes into play. And since there actually are a lot of people online who genuinely do complain about "social/political commentary" in TV shows, it can be hard to tell if someone is just joking or they're truly being "anti-woke/SJW".
So IMO, these days especially, sarcasm only really works online when it's been made clear that what's been said was intended as sarcasm, otherwise it just encourages misunderstandings, hurt feelings, anger, and unnecessary arguments. E.g. The responses @mattgif's comments triggered. And when all it takes is a "/s" at the end of a comment to prevent all that negativity, I don't see any reason not to include it.
p.s. A lot of neurodivergent and more literal-minded people (myself included) also have a very hard time detecting sarcasm, especially in text form, which doesn't help the situation either.
C'mon. The jape about South Park having too many jokes didn't give it away? The whole joke is that people here, before I posted, where whining about the show's raison d'etre. The beauty of irony...
C'mon. The jape about South Park having too many jokes didn't give it away? The whole joke is that people here, before I posted, where whining about the show's raison d'etre.
The beauty of irony is that it points the way to the problem with the thing being criticized, but doesn't outright state it. The reader hopefully makes the leap to put together the problem themselves, which makes the implicit argument more "sticky" in their mind.
But, now that I've written all that out, isn't it more succinct and fun to winkingly complain that, oh, the boy's characters have too much moral ambiguity for my taste?
Not to everyone. Just look at the responses you got. Someone even got their reply noise labeled because of how angry it was, and probably reported as well. And I originally reported another...
C'mon. The jape about South Park having too many jokes didn't give it away?
Not to everyone. Just look at the responses you got. Someone even got their reply noise labeled because of how angry it was, and probably reported as well. And I originally reported another comment in this thread that I thought was being serious and antagonistic as well, before realizing it was also sarcasm.
Points taken. It's not a law, that was tongue in cheek. I think there's room for playful sarcasm, even if it gets misunderstood sometimes. We all get misunderstood, we all miss things, it's good...
Points taken. It's not a law, that was tongue in cheek.
I think there's room for playful sarcasm, even if it gets misunderstood sometimes.
We all get misunderstood, we all miss things, it's good to try to minimize it, but it's ultimately unavoidable.
Sure, playful sarcasm has its place. But IMO especially when someone is being sarcastic about something particularly contentious or controversial, which has the potential it cause major issues if...
Sure, playful sarcasm has its place. But IMO especially when someone is being sarcastic about something particularly contentious or controversial, which has the potential it cause major issues if misconstrued, it's worth trying to make the sarcasm clear by using /s. And despite some misunderstandings being unavoidable, I think in this case had OP used /s this whole shitshow actually could have been avoided.
It's a comment about a comedy TV show! I find the rhetoric about "harm" or causing "major issues" to be overblown. My first comment, even if people missed the irony (not, fwiw, sarcasm, which has...
It's a comment about a comedy TV show! I find the rhetoric about "harm" or causing "major issues" to be overblown.
My first comment, even if people missed the irony (not, fwiw, sarcasm, which has malice) didn't say anything more controversial than the non-ironic posts that were here before.
What seems to have happened is that a few people missed the joke, felt bad about themselves as a result, and decided that the problem is irony itself, and that people who use it are engaging in, I quote, "asshole behavior."
Thank you. It was embarrassing yet I initially decided to not delete my reply. petrichor even msg'd privately to let me know this was all sarcasm; I said I still don't regret my reply much, and...
Thank you. It was embarrassing yet I initially decided to not delete my reply. petrichor even msg'd privately to let me know this was all sarcasm; I said I still don't regret my reply much, and while typing, I began to realise I was embarrassed. This kinda made it into my reply as well.
I don't delete posts so my embarrassing moments can be remembered. I'm quite strict about culpability, and I fundamentally believe that without realising you are fallible, you cannot responsibly use social media.
When I signed back in this morning and read about this topic on Tildes, I instantly moved to delete my reply. I am happy mattgif got me. Yet cfabbro raised a rly good point that the upheld ""law"" stating sarcasm can't be revealed in order to work enacts Poe's law — if not clearly indicated, sarcasm is identical to the real thing and can be just as damaging. Case in point: My original reply genuinely bashing mattgif.
So what was mattgif's response to cfabbro? Doubling down on sarcasm, taking no accountability and even implying it's our responsibility to figure out the reason they're deliberately obfuscating to make their blue-redpilled point 'stick'. That's, ironically, asshole behaviour.
You can admit sarcasm, but you cannot say your intentions are clear because 'people can get it.' You cannot socially comment on logic by feigning ignorance and then absolve yourself with the equivalent of a get out of jail free card — bad faith.
I forgot to add this but the best thing now is to let this entire comment chain end. The point was made, the logic reached its natural conclusion — the conversation cancels itself out. Any further replies offer nothing of value: Find something else to do or talk to your local wall, instead.
If for some reason you feel the urge to continue this conversation, just PM me. I'm happy to respond on hypocrite time. Otherwise, give someone a vote and gtfoh.
I really like the cynicism of this universe.
I'm sick of the ever repeated fantasies in film and TV about benevolent powers that be. It smacks of propaganda and is deeply unsatisfying when real life is so full of power hungry and easily corruptable narcissists.
Seeing characters in The Boys universe, at every level of the hierarchies, fighting for/against these systems and for what they want and believe in, evil bastards or not, is refreshingly realistic and cathartic to watch.
I'm looking firward to seaso 4 and rather hoping there will be more supplimental one-shot side shows like Gen V in the future too!
I really like this show and universe. Can't wait for the next season. Curious how it picks up after Gen V and who those new characters in the trailer are. Don't really have much to say other than that, but the few comments on here felt a bit one-sided
Gotta say, I'd be way more into this show if the violence were toned down like 90%.
I think the tone is appropriate but I can see why people might be turn off by the violence. It sucks that it probably won’t hit syndication cause you would probably be able to find a version that’s more censored/less bloody? Like some HBO shows have.
I'm not against it in principle, but I hate how they seem to stick to an overly predictable strict schedule of having one shockingly violent scene per episode. It's so routine that you know if the episode is most of the way through without it happening yet that a twist is going to happen any minute now with one.
I'm with you, everything in moderation. Like, in season 1 there was a genuine fear of all the violence because you got the feeling that these things could easily happen to the main characters. It was gore perfectly used to build tension. But now, four seasons in, and so many bloody fights have happened between the main show and Gen V, it's just an expectation that the main cast gets blood-soaked.
In something like Ash vs. Evil Dead the over-the-top blood and gore works great because the show is meant to be silly and gorey. But, when it comes to The Boys where there's a large power imbalance between the humans and the supes, part of the experience is that we know how underpowered "The Boys" really are when compared to their opponents. Having regular scenes where everyone is evaporated into a red mist except them takes away the tension.
Not that my enjoyment of the show is really lessened, I still kinda love it actually, I'm more thinking that the tension created by the gore in the first season was the hook to create a series more about it's social commentary than the danger it's characters put themselves in. And I think the commentary is strong, so it keeps it going. Not to say the characters and their drama isn't still fun too.
At this point, I'm mostly kind of semi-hate watching to finally see Homelander's demise. Because the universe is just seven kinds of cynical, and revels in gore and shock and evil triumphing.
I've looked through some summaries and discussions of the source material, and apparently that's exactly the tone Garth Ennis wanted, went for, and got. He basically just sat down and repeatedly asked himself "what if the most greedy, selfish, narcissistic, power-hungry dipshits either invented supers, were supers, or wanted to use/control supers?"
Because boy oh boy, that's what "The Boys" universe is. Everyone in it except the occasional little person, is just ... in some ways, it's kind of written unrealistically. Is written and developed in a way that doesn't quite hold true to its stated themes and character intents.
Because if Homelander and the others actually were as narcissistic and megalomaniacal as they're written (and act until they hit the story bumpers), Homelander would be ruling rather than just sulking that his follower counts aren't higher. Homelander, as written, would have pretty much vaporized at least the entire American government until he got to the people who slavishly fawned over his every whim, and then sat on his throne of skulls basking in the glory of being the God in Charge.
Or, alternately, at least some of the other heroes who are just like Homelander would be actively plotting against him. Wanting him out of the way or bending the knee to them. As Season 3 revealed, Homelander actually isn't a god; he is physically fallible. He can be beaten. The other on-screen heroes are apparently just terrified of him; too scared to band together and plot his downfall to clear the way for their own rise to power.
Apparently the only people in the entire onscreen Boys universe with any sense of morality or justice are "The Boys", excepting Butcher himself. Starlight I think is on that list though, but that's apparently it. Everyone else either worships supers, lives in abject fear of them praying never to be noticed, or is a power broker actively angling to manipulate supers to further nefarious goals.
It's kind of exhausting. It's sort of like a longer, more drawn out version of that period between Infinity War and Endgame. After IW it was just so depressing, the way IW ended. Endgame "fixed" it, and brought the happy ending, but waiting for it to arrive was ... something. The Boys is similar, except it's gone on for a lot longer than a year.
And I think it's not due to wrap up anytime particularly soon either? The comic ran 72 issues, and I'm not sure where the show is in relation at this point. Halfway through? Most standard TV contracts are signed for six seasons, so presumably Amazon would want to wrap it without needing to delve into a seventh (and pay the fee Antony Starr (especially) would demand to extend), but that still means all this will go on until probably 2028?
That's a fucklot of cynicism. Kill Homelander, give us some release. Because he's one of the most evil characters in visual storytelling right now. Darth Vader is just a pissed off teenager, and Tony Soprano was cuddly as long as you didn't piss him off. And even then Tony had rules. A code. Hannibal fucking Lector had a code, some twisted sense of honor or rules.
Homelander is just psychopathic Superman who won't actually act as he wants because the author (and screenwriters now) want to play with us rather than have the character truly do what he longs to anyway. Rule, absolutely.
I believe I "get" most of what Ennis wanted to explore. It's just all of that subject matter, those themes (along with Invincible) are just exhausting.
I really, really hope Gunn brings back Superman in DC. The Big Blue Boy Scout. Someone who will fight for what's right, not what's convenient. Someone who's fun to root for, rather than someone you watch in terror while you wait for other characters to deal with.
Addressing a few points here.
The show isn't really adapting the comics, it's more loosely inspired.
The other heroes don't know that he can be beaten, and it's a very risky proposition to try because if you fail that's it.
I don't think this would be the case. Homelander is a complex character, and one of his motivations is to be seen as "good" and a "hero", rather than a mass-murderer.
I do think Homelander's arc is ready to be resolved though... Season 3 felt like it was spinning it's wheels.
I don't know if I agree that Homelander "as-written" would be that decisive. I think they've done a good job writing him as a human-with-superpowers as opposed to just a superhuman. He was traumatized throughout his childhood and now has a crippling fear of abandonment, and no matter how powerful he is he's been unwilling to risk his public, lovable image to get more of what he wants. Obviously they mentality is changing over the course of the show, though.
I do think many parts of The Boys world are more cynical than is realistic, but that world is meant to parody reality, not reflect it perfectly. Exaggeration is expected. And it makes sense that the main cast are the only (mostly) good natured people because the conceit of the story is it's a David vs Goliath tale of the small team against the evil organization. That's just how the story is framed. This isn't a narrative where the good guys go around recruiting people to their cause to charge the evil army; they pursue subterfuge. So logically it makes sense that most of the minor characters they meet are evil in some way. I'm not saying it's executed perfectly or beyond criticism, I just think there is a reasonable narrative justification for most characters being shitty.
I generally like the show even though I agree that sometimes it's too much. But I also think it's one of the most fun to discuss shows in recent years.
Honestly, this may just not to be the kind of show for you. My favorite part of the show is Homelander - Anthony's performance is spectacular, and Homelander is just so much fun to watch.
I think you're kinda missing part of his character. He is a man-child, emphasis on child. He doesn't love himself, he loves the himself loved by other people. You can see that clearly in the last scene with Stan. Much of his character "development" throughout the seasons is testing boundaries - learning that he can get away with more and more. He's not some omnipotent evil being - he's really quite pathetic, which is what makes him interesting over his comic version, which is more what you described (and he does eventually do what you suggests).
I mean, do you really have a lack of superhero or heroic fiction in general where the main characters are fundamentally just? That's the vast majority of fiction. Part of this revival of morally grey TV shows is in reaction to being too much of that kind of show.
I agree with the other commenters: The Boys is too cynical and violent. Likewise, I am tired of South Park, which I feel has too many jokes.
I can't tell how much of this comment is serious.
The Boys could also stand to tone down the social commentary. Why can't we just have a nice show where the good guys always win, no one dies, and it says nothing meaningful about the world? Like... A marvel movie... But on TV!
I enjoy the show precisely because it's not Marvel. They do social commentary in a unusually thoughtful way for such a violent program.
The social commentary bothers me. It makes me think more critically about the world around me. I don't like that.
I'm genuinely wondering if you two are being sarcastic or not.
I would never lie on the Internet. I'm hurt. Wounded, even.
They are, but they're not allowed to tell you directly, unwritten law of sarcasm.
IMO that's a bad law. The problem with using sarcasm online is Poe's law often comes into play. And since there actually are a lot of people online who genuinely do complain about "social/political commentary" in TV shows, it can be hard to tell if someone is just joking or they're truly being "anti-woke/SJW".
So IMO, these days especially, sarcasm only really works online when it's been made clear that what's been said was intended as sarcasm, otherwise it just encourages misunderstandings, hurt feelings, anger, and unnecessary arguments. E.g. The responses @mattgif's comments triggered. And when all it takes is a "/s" at the end of a comment to prevent all that negativity, I don't see any reason not to include it.
p.s. A lot of neurodivergent and more literal-minded people (myself included) also have a very hard time detecting sarcasm, especially in text form, which doesn't help the situation either.
C'mon. The jape about South Park having too many jokes didn't give it away? The whole joke is that people here, before I posted, where whining about the show's raison d'etre.
The beauty of irony is that it points the way to the problem with the thing being criticized, but doesn't outright state it. The reader hopefully makes the leap to put together the problem themselves, which makes the implicit argument more "sticky" in their mind.
But, now that I've written all that out, isn't it more succinct and fun to winkingly complain that, oh, the boy's characters have too much moral ambiguity for my taste?
Not to everyone. Just look at the responses you got. Someone even got their reply noise labeled because of how angry it was, and probably reported as well. And I originally reported another comment in this thread that I thought was being serious and antagonistic as well, before realizing it was also sarcasm.
Points taken. It's not a law, that was tongue in cheek.
I think there's room for playful sarcasm, even if it gets misunderstood sometimes.
We all get misunderstood, we all miss things, it's good to try to minimize it, but it's ultimately unavoidable.
Sure, playful sarcasm has its place. But IMO especially when someone is being sarcastic about something particularly contentious or controversial, which has the potential it cause major issues if misconstrued, it's worth trying to make the sarcasm clear by using /s. And despite some misunderstandings being unavoidable, I think in this case had OP used /s this whole shitshow actually could have been avoided.
It's a comment about a comedy TV show! I find the rhetoric about "harm" or causing "major issues" to be overblown.
My first comment, even if people missed the irony (not, fwiw, sarcasm, which has malice) didn't say anything more controversial than the non-ironic posts that were here before.
What seems to have happened is that a few people missed the joke, felt bad about themselves as a result, and decided that the problem is irony itself, and that people who use it are engaging in, I quote, "asshole behavior."
I do get your point, but shitshow seems like a dramatic characterization.
Just so you know, GP is being ironic, you're saying essentially the same thing they are.
Thank you. It was embarrassing yet I initially decided to not delete my reply. petrichor even msg'd privately to let me know this was all sarcasm; I said I still don't regret my reply much, and while typing, I began to realise I was embarrassed. This kinda made it into my reply as well.
I don't delete posts so my embarrassing moments can be remembered. I'm quite strict about culpability, and I fundamentally believe that without realising you are fallible, you cannot responsibly use social media.
When I signed back in this morning and read about this topic on Tildes, I instantly moved to delete my reply. I am happy mattgif got me. Yet cfabbro raised a rly good point that the upheld ""law"" stating sarcasm can't be revealed in order to work enacts Poe's law — if not clearly indicated, sarcasm is identical to the real thing and can be just as damaging. Case in point: My original reply genuinely bashing mattgif.
So what was mattgif's response to cfabbro? Doubling down on sarcasm, taking no accountability and even implying it's our responsibility to figure out the reason they're deliberately obfuscating to make their blue-redpilled point 'stick'. That's, ironically, asshole behaviour.
You can admit sarcasm, but you cannot say your intentions are clear because 'people can get it.' You cannot socially comment on logic by feigning ignorance and then absolve yourself with the equivalent of a get out of jail free card — bad faith.
I forgot to add this but the best thing now is to let this entire comment chain end. The point was made, the logic reached its natural conclusion — the conversation cancels itself out. Any further replies offer nothing of value: Find something else to do or talk to your local wall, instead.
If for some reason you feel the urge to continue this conversation, just PM me. I'm happy to respond on hypocrite time. Otherwise, give someone a vote and gtfoh.