Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
RBA Starblade
Apr 28, 2008

Going Home.

Games Idiot Court Jester

LividLiquid posted:

This show is always an exercise in writing yourself into a corner and then being a goddamn magician about getting yourself out of it, but this really feels like the final arc.

The logical end to this story as it's been told so far is that The Brainy Bunch does good for the rest of the season despite knowing they'll never get in the good place, a good place representative reading the manifesto, and them being let into the good place. Series over.

But they're going to impress me, as they always do, by doing something else.

See I'm expecting the next place it goes to be the world finds out about the manifesto and the brainy bunch accidentally dooms all of humanity to endless torture/breaks the entire system for everyone

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Otherkinsey Scale
Jul 17, 2012

Just a little bit of sunshine!

Kaedric posted:

Weren't folks giving someone poo poo because it was 'creepy' to like Janet in that waitress outfit?


Just... sayin

Let me help you out here. Saying someone is physically attractive is not inherently weird! It's possible to appropriately express attraction to someone because they took off their shirt. On the other hand, there is no appropriate way to express attraction to someone specifically because they had to put their hair in pigtails and wear daisy dukes, because that is infantilizing.

Hope that helps! To get back on topic a bit, Chidi would call the fact that you brought that up in relation to this a 'false equivalence'. It's a logic term.

OctaviusBeaver
Apr 30, 2009

Say what now?
Nah it's because Chidi is a dude so everyone gets a pass. For some reason it's popular now for straight men to talk about how another dude turns them on so people jumped on that bandwagon.

Kaedric
Sep 5, 2000

Otherkinsey Scale posted:

Let me help you out here. Saying someone is physically attractive is not inherently weird! It's possible to appropriately express attraction to someone because they took off their shirt. On the other hand, there is no appropriate way to express attraction to someone specifically because they had to put their hair in pigtails and wear daisy dukes, because that is infantilizing.

Hope that helps! To get back on topic a bit, Chidi would call the fact that you brought that up in relation to this a 'false equivalence'. It's a logic term.

Actually I only posted that comment because I thought it was dumb that it was OK to like Chidi, but not Janet, or at least not to express it. I think it is cool and good to post about liking the way people look and nothing anyone posted actually bothered me.

Your post however is possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read but keep on being incredibly condescending, that's cool too.

Jezza of OZPOS
Mar 21, 2018

GET LOSE❌🗺️, YOUS CAN'T COMPARE😤 WITH ME 💪POWERS🇦🇺

OctaviusBeaver posted:

Nah it's because Chidi is a dude so everyone gets a pass. For some reason it's popular now for straight men to talk about how another dude turns them on so people jumped on that bandwagon.

It’s bc it’s nice to have things in common with women

Pinterest Mom
Jun 9, 2009

Arist
Feb 13, 2012

who, me?


why would you do this to me

Jezza of OZPOS
Mar 21, 2018

GET LOSE❌🗺️, YOUS CAN'T COMPARE😤 WITH ME 💪POWERS🇦🇺
Hitting the report button is a conflict of virtue ethics (not wanting to be a snitch) and shared ethical responsibility (making sure as few people as possible see that image)

Regy Rusty
Apr 26, 2010

Neither the post about Janet nor the posts about Chidi were bad.

Now the post 3 above me on the other hand...

tarlibone
Aug 1, 2014
Fun Shoe
I don't know a thing about anime, so whatever people are saying about that post... yeah, I don't get it.

And don't explain it. Seriously. It's fun enough for me to watch you all react to this thing that I absolutely don't get. I guess I know how old people feel now.

...

(sadly) Oh....

Doltos
Dec 28, 2005

🤌🤌🤌
I wonder if the writers ever think huh should we flesh out this points system concept nah no way will people over analyze our light hearted take on the after life

Goatse James Bond
Mar 28, 2010

If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Malcolm Turnbeug posted:

Hitting the report button is a conflict of virtue ethics (not wanting to be a snitch) and shared ethical responsibility (making sure as few people as possible see that image)

deontology could come down on either side

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES
How many points is being totally ripped?

Tequila25
May 12, 2001
Ask me about tapioca.

Kaedric posted:

Actually I only posted that comment because I thought it was dumb that it was OK to like Chidi, but not Janet, or at least not to express it. I think it is cool and good to post about liking the way people look and nothing anyone posted actually bothered me.

Your post however is possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read but keep on being incredibly condescending, that's cool too.

Because both comments exist in a context of a society where women are still judged mainly by appearance, but guys taking care of their appearance is judged as "gay'.

Harrow
Jun 30, 2012

Doltos posted:

I wonder if the writers ever think huh should we flesh out this points system concept nah no way will people over analyze our light hearted take on the after life

After listening to a bunch of the podcast, I don't think the writers are all that opposed to people overanalyzing the points system. I think we're supposed to think about the system and notice the holes and come to the same conclusion as Michael (it's fundamentally broken and unfair).

eke out
Feb 24, 2013



Harrow posted:

After listening to a bunch of the podcast, I don't think the writers are all that opposed to people overanalyzing the points system. I think we're supposed to think about the system and notice the holes and come to the same conclusion as Michael (it's fundamentally broken and unfair).

yeah I don't think it's subtext or a matter of interpretation that the whole system is broke right now, it's explicitly the thing we're supposed to be thinking.

pseudorandom name
May 6, 2007

Accretionist posted:

How many points is being totally ripped?

Being totally ripped is not sufficient, you must share your total rippedness with appreciative audiences.

withak
Jan 15, 2003


Fun Shoe
Yeah it depends on whether you use your powers for good or for evil.

Koalas March
May 21, 2007



Tequila25 posted:

Because both comments exist in a context of a society where women are still judged mainly by appearance, but guys taking care of their appearance is judged as "gay'.

If you really want to get into it you can add society's multiple hosed up ways of fetishising black people, although tbh I haven't seen that itt.

LividLiquid
Apr 13, 2002

OctaviusBeaver posted:

Nah it's because Chidi is a dude so everyone gets a pass. For some reason it's popular now for straight men to talk about how another dude turns them on so people jumped on that bandwagon.
It's because men aren't routinely told their only worth is their looks, so it doesn't carry the cultural weight to talk about their bodies that it does women.

Tequila25 posted:

Because both comments exist in a context of a society where women are still judged mainly by appearance, but guys taking care of their appearance is judged as "gay'.
Woop woop.

Xealot
Nov 25, 2002

Showdown in the Galaxy Era.

Otherkinsey Scale posted:

On the other hand, there is no appropriate way to express attraction to someone specifically because they had to put their hair in pigtails and wear daisy dukes, because that is infantilizing.

Is Daisy Duke somehow an infantile character? Like, if your argument is that it’s sexist, then sure. But as I recall, the iconography of that character is that of a voluptuous adult woman, like a pinup calendar.

I’m not defending anyone creeping on Janet, but I don’t think she was supposed to look underage or childlike. It wasn’t a schoolgirl uniform. D’Arcy Carden is 38.

emgeejay
Dec 8, 2007

Xealot posted:

Is Daisy Duke somehow an infantile character? Like, if your argument is that it’s sexist, then sure. But as I recall, the iconography of that character is that of a voluptuous adult woman, like a pinup calendar.
There's uh, definitely a "farmer's daughter" vibe to the Daisy Duke archetype, yes

tarlibone
Aug 1, 2014
Fun Shoe
I thought the joke about having Janet in the America Restaurant waitress costume was funny because I thought it was a funny costume. We always see Janet being 100% serious, and she dresses the part. Seeing this totally serious robot (not a robot!) character going undercover as a waitress, complete with goofy outfit and her realizing that she can't just summon a bunch of beers because she's on Earth, was funny. Seeing her stay in that outfit for a while would have continued to be funny, at least for a little while.

Honestly, I didn't see it as sexy at all. Yeah, it showed a few inches of her midriff, but other than that, I don't remember it being fetishized or even particularly revealing.

Does anyone seriously look at that outfit and see it as a fetishized costume? Because I didn't. I saw it and my only thought was "that's hilarious!"

SirSamVimes
Jul 21, 2008

~* Challenge *~


I mean it's possible for an outfit to be attractive without being fetishized.

emgeejay
Dec 8, 2007

SirSamVimes posted:

I mean it's possible for an outfit to be attractive without being fetishized.

not on the internet

LividLiquid
Apr 13, 2002

emgeejay posted:

There's uh, definitely a "farmer's daughter" vibe to the Daisy Duke archetype, yes
The farmer's daughter trope (as it is now, possibly not at is origins) is that she's a sexually awakened adult raised by a religious and oppressive father who's yearning to experience more than her dull farm life with her family. It's remarkably sex-positive and feminist, if you ask me. As it's told now, she always seduces the stranger whose car broke down; not the other way around.

Granted, this is how I've always seen it portrayed, and it might have been super gross beforehand, but that's the version I absorbed through osmosis through poo poo like Seinfeld.

tarlibone
Aug 1, 2014
Fun Shoe

SirSamVimes posted:

I mean it's possible for an outfit to be attractive without being fetishized.

I agree. It's just that ever since that comment was made, the assumption seems to be that whoever it was wanted to see Janet in that outfit because it was sexy, and it's misogynist to want to see women in sexy outfits (or something like that). Is it possible the OP just meant that it was a funny costume, and that is the reason why they wanted to see her in it more often? I ask because I didn't find the outfit sexy. I don't think it was ugly or anything, but it didn't strike me as fetishized (especially in terms of infantilism fetish), sexy, or even particularly attractive. It was just a goofy getup. Serious person + goofy outfit = comedy gold.

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 12, 2015

by Cyrano4747
yeah like... the outfit is sexy mostly because D'Arcy Carden is really goddamn hot and would probably look good even in a literal potato sack. like, she's probably the only person on earth who could make Sexy Gritty work.

eke out
Feb 24, 2013




okay now we're definitely in fetish territory

the holy poopacy
May 16, 2009

hey! check this out
Fun Shoe
Just saw the latest episode. I had not really been feeling this season but gently caress that was great :allears:

Goatse James Bond
Mar 28, 2010

If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

tarlibone posted:

I agree. It's just that ever since that comment was made, the assumption seems to be that whoever it was wanted to see Janet in that outfit because it was sexy, and it's misogynist to want to see women in sexy outfits (or something like that). Is it possible the OP just meant that it was a funny costume, and that is the reason why they wanted to see her in it more often? I ask because I didn't find the outfit sexy. I don't think it was ugly or anything, but it didn't strike me as fetishized (especially in terms of infantilism fetish), sexy, or even particularly attractive. It was just a goofy getup. Serious person + goofy outfit = comedy gold.

As the poster who initiated this sequence of events: I was uncomfortable with the moderate level of objectification involved with the outfit (as a midriff-baring waitress outfit in a restaurant satirizing all the worst things about America and its restaurants) but this isn't a bad post either.

that said I don't regret instigating a serious discussion of the Daisy Duke archetype

Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Oct 22, 2018

Xealot
Nov 25, 2002

Showdown in the Galaxy Era.

LividLiquid posted:

As it's told now, she always seduces the stranger whose car broke down; not the other way around.

This is my context for the archetype, as well.

Daisy Duke isn’t specifically the point, though. What I’m saying is that I object to the suggestion that a woman in “revealing” clothing is somehow infantilized or disempowered inherently. As if she can’t possibly have sexual agency unless she’s dressed like a lawyer or something.

Senor Tron
May 26, 2006


At the risk of extending this line of discussion, they actually have an interesting conversation on the podcast about if they feel okay talking about Wills bod.

Gaz-L
Jan 28, 2009
I also like how their podcast appearances imply that Megan and D'arcy regress to being about 12 mentally when they're together. They're basically giggling about puns and boys and making fun of Marc the whole time.

Patrovsky
May 8, 2007
whatever is fine



Does the podcast need to be watched in conjunction with the episode it relates to?

Strom Cuzewon
Jul 1, 2010

Senor Tron posted:

At the risk of extending this line of discussion, they actually have an interesting conversation on the podcast about if they feel okay talking about Wills bod.

This show really *does* make people more ethical!

Klungar
Feb 12, 2008

Klungo make bessst ever video game, 'Hero Klungo Sssavesss Teh World.'

Patrovsky posted:

Does the podcast need to be watched in conjunction with the episode it relates to?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "conjunction". The podcast definitely spoilers the whole plot of the episode, so I wouldn't listen to the podcast until you watch the corresponding episode.

Phenotype
Jul 24, 2007

You must defeat Sheng Long to stand a chance.



It's very simple, I think. How would you react if one of the actresses had a scene where she took her top off and walked around shirtless for a while, and tons of people started posting about how turned on they were? I think that would be pretty obviously gross. It shouldn't be any less gross just because it's a man that did it.

Strawman
Feb 9, 2008

Tortuga means turtle, and that's me. I take my time but I always win.


has this thread really just degenerated into the equivalent of white people whining because they can't say the N word?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

swickles
Aug 21, 2006

I guess that I don't need that though
Now you're just some QB that I used to know

Phenotype posted:

It's very simple, I think. How would you react if one of the actresses had a scene where she took her top off and walked around shirtless for a while, and tons of people started posting about how turned on they were? I think that would be pretty obviously gross. It shouldn't be any less gross just because it's a man that did it.

Its ok to admit when sexy things are sexy. What its not ok to do is to be creepy about it, or over the top, or to reduce the person to that thing alone.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply