User:RD/9k/Q30,67: Difference between revisions
copy markup from 9k/Q34,90 |
m formatting |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{NextNineThousand|PPPA= | {{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Helluva Boss & the representational|User=RD|E=Q30,67|h1={{book|Helluva Boss}} & the representational (Q30,67)|Contents=y}} | ||
== Main entry == | == Main entry == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/DFy|Q=30,67|Q2=3067|h4 = Stolas merely lacks realism }} / {{film|Helluva Boss}} would have been okay if it had presented its central relationship as a horrifying inescapable fate rather than something that can be fixed -><br/> | |||
this brings up an interesting question: if natural law shouldn't exist in that there's no reason for it to already exist, but in general fiction becomes bad when it doesn't line up with reality, does this mean natural law {{em|does}} in fact exist, just not in the form people think it does? if you rebuilt the whole concept of natural law using exmat, would it still be natural law or would it be [[E:ship of Theseus|a different | if you want them to get back together, then why not, you can write whatever you want to. I think what upsets people is when the premise of the work and the consequences of things happening don't match each other. it always traces back to non-Materialism. Media Representation and its absences and racism, "morality", everything. it's so infuriating that people don't see this and they keep thinking that art is just... this totally special area of activity with its own special rules that you have to take people aside and teach them, when actually, the reasons that art would be upsetting simply trace back to it not matching reality. it's really quite simple.<br /> | ||
this brings up an interesting question: if natural law shouldn't exist in that there's no reason for it to already exist, but in general fiction becomes bad when it doesn't line up with reality, does this mean natural law {{em|does}} in fact exist, just not in the form people think it does? if you rebuilt the whole concept of natural law using exmat, would it still be natural law or would it be [[E:ship of Theseus|a different boat]]? I guess in a sense that's the same question as if you rebuild Hegel using Materialism whether that's still Hegel, or if you rebuild Trotskyism using mainstream Marxism-Leninism whether it's still Trotskyism. I think it has to do with the functional purpose the thing fulfils and if its purpose is the same | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
== Ideology codes == | == Ideology codes == | ||
* | * Fy / arts | ||
* DFy / adults-only cartoon | |||
* DFy / adults-only comedy | |||
* Fy / media analysis | |||
* Fy / artistic representation and coding | |||
Latest revision as of 05:00, 12 March 2026
Main entry[edit]
Stolas merely lacks realism
/ Helluva Boss would have been okay if it had presented its central relationship as a horrifying inescapable fate rather than something that can be fixed ->
if you want them to get back together, then why not, you can write whatever you want to. I think what upsets people is when the premise of the work and the consequences of things happening don't match each other. it always traces back to non-Materialism. Media Representation and its absences and racism, "morality", everything. it's so infuriating that people don't see this and they keep thinking that art is just... this totally special area of activity with its own special rules that you have to take people aside and teach them, when actually, the reasons that art would be upsetting simply trace back to it not matching reality. it's really quite simple.
this brings up an interesting question: if natural law shouldn't exist in that there's no reason for it to already exist, but in general fiction becomes bad when it doesn't line up with reality, does this mean natural law does in fact exist, just not in the form people think it does? if you rebuilt the whole concept of natural law using exmat, would it still be natural law or would it be a different boat? I guess in a sense that's the same question as if you rebuild Hegel using Materialism whether that's still Hegel, or if you rebuild Trotskyism using mainstream Marxism-Leninism whether it's still Trotskyism. I think it has to do with the functional purpose the thing fulfils and if its purpose is the same
Related[edit]
Ideology codes[edit]
- Fy / arts
- DFy / adults-only cartoon
- DFy / adults-only comedy
- Fy / media analysis
- Fy / artistic representation and coding