Anti-intellectualism in cartoons?
- Thread starter JOKER23
- Start date
Filip Lietuvs
New member
On the contarary, Pseudoscience is anti-intllectualism. Or to be more speicic, the intellectual counterculture.
Cartoons that play off the ideas of the intellecual counterculutre furthers more anti-intellecualism than showing the brainy guy as the most annoying.
Name one example.
Cartoons that play off the ideas of the intellecual counterculutre furthers more anti-intellecualism than showing the brainy guy as the most annoying.
Name one example.
SeanFirst Name
New member
90% of everything the Question said in JLU.
rewardsboy 93
New member
Oh, as it treating such ideas as a fantastic concept. That's legitimate, as long as there is a justifcation in the plot.
However, having characters or the creators present anti-intellual ideas (such as pop psychology, poor theology, psuedoscience, artistic narrcissm, anti-science, etc.) is not legitmate.
However, having characters or the creators present anti-intellual ideas (such as pop psychology, poor theology, psuedoscience, artistic narrcissm, anti-science, etc.) is not legitmate.
Jessicaaa. <3
New member
Gatomon, I can't debate you because I don't even understand what the hell you're saying.
I'm going to try to puzzle it out, though, and I think you're mixing definitions. Pseudoscience is anti-scientific, because it sets out with a conclusion, say, proving the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood, and then tries to find evidence to support that assumption. Science moves the other way, from observation to conclusion.
Anti-Intellectualism is just the mistrust of smart people and the things smart people do, like, you know, reading a book. Since a lot of pseudoscientists think they are smart and think they are doing smart things I don't think that fits.
Like GregX said, we live in an society that tends to embrace anti-intellectualism, but I think its way more likely to come from religion, especially fundamentalist religion, politicians who want to appear to have populist leaning, right wing tv and radio personalities and a belief that intellectuals are elitists, as well as the "cult of self-esteem" that another poster mentioned.
All the other things you listed, well, they just seem to be things you disagree with. Being a wrong idea doesn't make it anti-intellectual. To be anti-intellectual it has to fit the definition of being against intellectualism or casting it in a negative light, which none of those things really do.
For examples of some of the stuff you mentioned being portrayed as fantasy, well, Invader Zim isn't real, I guess, none of the monsters on Courage are real, Fairly Oddparents doesn't try to convince anyone fairies are real. All of those fantastic elements are just grist for fantasy adventure stories, where they belong. The cartoon doesn't try to lead people to believe that, hey kids, in the real world this could exist.
GregX somehow managed to pull the one example I wouldn't have used, because when it mattered in JLU the Question was right, there really was a secret government conspiracy. In the context of the cartoon, then, the other things he said sound crazy but weren't exactly debunked and in fact may also be true.
Finally, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Give me some examples where cartoons specifically, seriously promote some of the things you're on about. The closest I can think of is a Tiny Toons that tried to cram vegitarianism down kids throats.
I'm going to try to puzzle it out, though, and I think you're mixing definitions. Pseudoscience is anti-scientific, because it sets out with a conclusion, say, proving the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood, and then tries to find evidence to support that assumption. Science moves the other way, from observation to conclusion.
Anti-Intellectualism is just the mistrust of smart people and the things smart people do, like, you know, reading a book. Since a lot of pseudoscientists think they are smart and think they are doing smart things I don't think that fits.
Like GregX said, we live in an society that tends to embrace anti-intellectualism, but I think its way more likely to come from religion, especially fundamentalist religion, politicians who want to appear to have populist leaning, right wing tv and radio personalities and a belief that intellectuals are elitists, as well as the "cult of self-esteem" that another poster mentioned.
All the other things you listed, well, they just seem to be things you disagree with. Being a wrong idea doesn't make it anti-intellectual. To be anti-intellectual it has to fit the definition of being against intellectualism or casting it in a negative light, which none of those things really do.
For examples of some of the stuff you mentioned being portrayed as fantasy, well, Invader Zim isn't real, I guess, none of the monsters on Courage are real, Fairly Oddparents doesn't try to convince anyone fairies are real. All of those fantastic elements are just grist for fantasy adventure stories, where they belong. The cartoon doesn't try to lead people to believe that, hey kids, in the real world this could exist.
GregX somehow managed to pull the one example I wouldn't have used, because when it mattered in JLU the Question was right, there really was a secret government conspiracy. In the context of the cartoon, then, the other things he said sound crazy but weren't exactly debunked and in fact may also be true.
Finally, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Give me some examples where cartoons specifically, seriously promote some of the things you're on about. The closest I can think of is a Tiny Toons that tried to cram vegitarianism down kids throats.
Um, I think you guys are missing the point: it's the interaction.
Example: Dexter's Lab: Dexter and DeeDee are cool because of the interaction. Individualy, they were entertaining for a little while but they swiftly became annoying. Put them together, and it's HILARIOUS.
What about Pinky and the Brain? This was by no means an anti-intellectual show, yet you have the same smart vs. dumb issue in EVERY episode.
Weather or not people are aware of it, it's the relationship dynamics that make the show interesting (and anvil dropping, egad I love a good anvil dropping...). This is why so many cartoons suck nowadays; they have everything BUT interesting characters which ultimately leads to failure. It's also why some very cliche'd shows (IE Bleach) are so enjoyable - the characters are interesting!
As far as the boy=stupid, girl=smart thing? It's annoying but it'll balance out. Watch anything from thirty or so years ago and you see the exact opposite. This is a strange new world we're running around in, people are still working out new gender roles and traditions and whatnot, so very few people know how to really portray a balanced male/female relationship in an entertaining manor.
Oh, and btw: DeeDee isn't stupid. She's Zen.
Example: Dexter's Lab: Dexter and DeeDee are cool because of the interaction. Individualy, they were entertaining for a little while but they swiftly became annoying. Put them together, and it's HILARIOUS.
What about Pinky and the Brain? This was by no means an anti-intellectual show, yet you have the same smart vs. dumb issue in EVERY episode.
Weather or not people are aware of it, it's the relationship dynamics that make the show interesting (and anvil dropping, egad I love a good anvil dropping...). This is why so many cartoons suck nowadays; they have everything BUT interesting characters which ultimately leads to failure. It's also why some very cliche'd shows (IE Bleach) are so enjoyable - the characters are interesting!
As far as the boy=stupid, girl=smart thing? It's annoying but it'll balance out. Watch anything from thirty or so years ago and you see the exact opposite. This is a strange new world we're running around in, people are still working out new gender roles and traditions and whatnot, so very few people know how to really portray a balanced male/female relationship in an entertaining manor.
Oh, and btw: DeeDee isn't stupid. She's Zen.
Rainy Rose
New member
Wow, really good point about the interaction. If you have a dumb guy you need a smart guy. I still think the dumb guys end up coming off better more often, though.
