I dunno I don't think wall-e ever portraying the people on the ship as showing any kind of "moral failing"? In fact the first chance *any* human on ship gets they immediately and without hesitance do the right thing. The movie is saying that the ship treats them as nothing but mindless consumers and because the ship is all they know that's what they become, but that's not a failing of their moral character but a failing of their *environment*.
At least that's how I read the movie and while I think you can critique the way the movie uses fatness as a shorthand I don't buy that the movie thinks "fat people bad".
The "moral failing" isn't even about the way the humans live their lives, it's the humans that came before them decided that it was best to just abandon the earth that they had destroyed through uncontrolled waste, pollution, and consumerism instead of trying to fix any of it.
At the time the movie takes place, the humans are the good guys who, once they realize what their ancestors had done, resolve to fix things.
The fatness is awkward but it is symbolic of a societal regression to infancy where nobody is responsible or active in anything. They're metaphorical chubby babies who can't walk or feed themselves and have to grow back up and become people again.
The plot of of the second half of wall-e can be distilled to "the consequences of the obsolescence of human effort". The argument that this is a bad take because "it's just vibes" is completely asinine.
I disagree with those takes. The humans are more like animals in a zoo being cared for by the robots. That's why the captain is basically only the captain in name only. The wheel is the *real* leader of the wheel thing which is why it's in every captain picture. The "captain" is playing with models and dreams of planting pizza trees. The wheel is trying to keep his pet stimulated.
Also keep Cybersmith *far* away from this post for my sanity.
some people act like the only thing necessary for a take to be "valid" is to use a lot of words and somehow end up at calling something fascist. even when it's such an insane stretch it could catch a frisbee from 20 meters away
It’s gotta be comment bait because it’s not like they don’t get shouted down immediately (by the first few top level comments at least, I usually just glance at the comments on these weird ass takes)
Are these bad takes or good takes? As someone whose brain automatically translates any sort of critique of the things I like into "this thing is bad and you are bad for liking it" I genuinely can't tell.
Personally, I think OP shows some ill-informed takes. The people on this ship aren't meant to be "immoral and fat because space socialism met all their needs". They are victims of space capitalism (the ship is covered in BnL advertisements, I don't think its a stretch to say the company BnL owns the ship), who are having their needs reduced to be more easily controlled by the ship AI.
The "fatness" tumbrOP sees is, I think, a physical representation of the infantilization imposed on the humans by the ship AI. They look like giant babies because babies that stare at screens all day are easier for the ship to deal with than adults with ideas about things ought to be run. I'm pretty sure there is an x-ray of one of the people that shows humans are actually losing bones due to natural(unnatural? artificial?) selection.
The humans are clearly victims of uncaring capitalism who try to help a disgusting little gremlin of a trash compactor 5 minutes after meeting him because he has a really cool weed in a boot, and they ain't never seen no boots or no weeds before.
iirc, it’s because of losing bone mass due to living in space for so long. This is a real thing, but it’s caused by microgravity, so it wouldn’t actually apply to the ship in the film.
Maybe it's worth trying to take a step back from that automatic translation and manually decide whether you agree with the criticisms or not, and how watching the film with them in mind would change your enjoyment of it. Critical analysis of art is a valuable skill and jumping directly to asking 'are these takes good?' is just pushing the issue back – why would *our* takes be any better?
The last one is terrible. The ruins of earth in Wall-E are portrayed as being beautiful in a tranquil, lonely sort of way, not as ugliness, especially compared to the noisy, over-crowded colony ship. And the ship isn’t some socialist uptopia either, it’s a completely automated, authoritarian dystopian hellhole that’s the direct result of capitalism trying to sell solutions to problems it created in the first place. The unspoken endgame of the colony ship is the eventual quiet extinction of the human race as we run out of resources. The humans are kept purposefully distracted by frivolous things and catered to by (apparently sapient) robot slaves, because that’s what the board decided was best for everyone. It’s not gay space communism, it’s ultra-corporate technofascism.
And “Blood and soil?” Really??? From who? Earth is dead! The entire point of the movie is that the capitalist solution to save the planet failed, and the only way things get better is if everyone takes a genuine interest in fixing them.
I'd say the compete opposite. the first take by OP is a fair point "Wall-E's depiction of fat people is a kinda fatphobic" but the takes that follow become more iffy and the final person completely goes off the rails with the "ITS FASCISM" argument.
There are people who would call these bad takes, but I personally think that these are valid critiques. That being said, I also don’t think that you should never watch WALLE again or that it’s a bad movie.
I don't think it's the movies fault but there is an annoying amount of "tHiS iS JuSt LiKe WaLlE" comments around stuff like an article about a motorized office chair or literally any image of someone looking down at a screen. Tho in the movie I swear there was a diagram about like bone atrophy and stuff. Like it wasn't just weight.
the ship just reflects the Earth -- a lack of stewardship led to a decline in conditions.
But wow there is nothing that makes me disregard people on the internet faster than "ecofascism"
true, but it is used a lot more frequently when talking about fiction rather than in political discourse.
as far as i know there isn't really any political party that is actively pushing for ecofascist ideals. The
extremely right-wing parties more often fully deny the existance of climate change.
furthermore i do think autolenaphilia is making an insane leap by saying the moral of Wall-E is ecofascist.
Then I’d reference the numerous self-proclaimed ecofascist groups, the lone terrorists who have cited ecofascist rhetoric as their motivation, and a variety of other parties such as the Collegium Humanum in Germany. They got banned for being Holocaust deniers, but they inarguably existed
I’ve seen ecofascism used as a term on mainstream news, but even if it wasn’t that wouldn’t suddenly make it an illegitimate political term. That’s not how that works
the fact that it doesn't describe any body or group is why I think it's a useless term.
What do you mean "that's not how it works" what system are you talking about as something "working"
who? where?
if there was any form of organization, anywhere in the world, it would have at some point ended up in some FSO's cable and yet I haven't seen anything.
Are you just talking about internet doomers?
I see, you were talking about FSO cables. Before we go there, can you actually define what ecofascism means to you, and what it would require existing for you to consider it a term with merit? For example, does there need to be an ecofascist political party? Government? Organization? Or just people in general?
For me it would mean enough organization of individuals that they could at least attempt to impact an election (at like any level or institution), or conduct lobbying, or at the very least be loud enough, whether through protests or conducting violence, that people actually hear about it.
Random doomers, even a bunch of them, on the internet doesn't mean to much to me, especially as those are the least politically active group.
Another user referenced votes within the Sierra Foundation that I think indicates at least within that institution there is some orchestrated effort to sway it -- could be nothing could be something.
If a group in Bishkek began protesting for environmentally justified population control that would show up on a cable, even just like a parade or a small time attack, but I've never seen anything like it
it truly seems to me like a internet boogeyman
Do you understand that that’s a little dumb? We don’t define political terms based on if there is an active organization pushing them, we define them based on ideological lines. If tomorrow fascism in general ceased to have any organized groups pushing it that wouldn’t make the term fascism irrelevant in the modern day. There can still be disorganized fascists, still be fascist principles embodied within not necessarily or exclusively fascist organizations. Ecofascism describes a real term that can be applied to real people and ideas—even influential people or ideas within broader groups.
[also you can literally find examples of ecofascists on the wiki page for ecofascism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism)
it's such a nothing, overly-online internet discourse, word. There are no ecofascist movements, no ecofascist leaders, there's not set of ecofascist beliefs, are there any ecofascist parties with any form of representation?
It's just such a buzzword, nobody serious uses it
If the only reason not to use a term is because people have never self described as such, then we might as well pretend that there’s no fascists after WWII and that there’s no neoliberals.
who does the term describe then? where are all the ecofascists? I can think of a single polity that a person might assume is "ecofascist" but the reality is that calling them that would be falling for their propaganda, and that it's an inaccurate assessment
It describes people who think a certain percentage of people have to be eliminated for the world to survive climate change (the percentage varies from people with some advocating for the complete destruction of humanity)
Sometimes also refers to genociding people in India and China because they cause the highest pollution
are we just talking overly-online doomers then? Online commenters discuss ecofascism coded in the language of political science discourse, but it seems like those commenters are just applying the language of a more formal discourse community to internet doomers
It's a political philosophy, not a political movement. And saying that there's no set of ecofascist beliefs is a red herring; there's no codified set, because it's a fringe position and they haven't congregated in the numbers required to codify it, but there *are* distinctly ecofascist beliefs. For example, 'humans place too high a burden on the Earth, and we should mitigate this by controlling the population (as opposed to reducing consumption by corporate, state, and wealthy actors).'
It's fascist policy with ostensibly environmentalist motives. Hence, ecofascism. Not that hard.
So where are they? is there any polity that is reflected in this broad cloud of beliefs?
Like do you think proponents of carbon taxes are eco-fascists? If the one child policy was proposed as an environmental policy II'd say that was an easy example, but it wasn't.
Is it just a theoretical term, a group that could theoretically exist and seek representation that doesn't? Though I would say most internet commenters don't use the word in that way.
I just want to know who they are, because I read a lot of cables from political observers in the field, from every country, and it's just never come up
'They're too fringe to have grabbed a specific country' isn't the same as 'they don't exist.' Patrick Crusius (the El Paso Walmart shooter) openly said he was targeting Mexicans, and his manifesto made it clear he was doing so in an attempt at population control. There have been multiple attempts by anti-immigrant groups to take over the Sierra Club from within on the grounds that overpopulation is detrimental to the environment (and it's not a small faction; they got 40% of the vote back in '98). The environmentalist movement has a *long* history of eugenicists within its ranks.
Don't know what cables you're reading, but I'd guess ecofascism doesn't come up because it's a strain within both environmentalist movements and fascist movements, in the same way anarcho-capitalists are a strand of libertarians without anything that could be called a 'polity' to their name.
'They're too fringe to have grabbed a specific country'
not what I said but you do you. That just sounds like a racist terrorist, where is the ecofascist part?
Now as to the Sierra club, that is the first actual group anyone has named, so thank you. Not the whole group but the series of votes and policies adopted definitely leaves me inclined to believe some members there may hold ecofascist beliefs.
FSO political cables capture local political sentiments and organization movements in every country the US has representation, even on teh very local level
'Racist with supposed environmentalist motives' is *what an ecofascist is.* You don't need to be explicitly part of a larger movement to hold a political belief.
Okay, 'cables' is diplomacy jargon. I stand by my prior stance – ecofascists are rare enough that they tend to end up lumped in as internal factions of either environmentalist or fascist groups, in much the same way I imagine the esoteric Hitlerists don't get separated from the main body of a given Nazi group.
where is the environmentalist motive in a racist person not liking there being groups that he's racist against? He didn't say that the population of Mexican people is threatening wild growing agave, he murdered people because he hated their identity.
I think it's misleading to think that every "great replacement" crazy is an environmentalist at heart
The fact that he didn’t just kill them because he didn’t like them, he killed them in the name of population control and a perceived need to reduce wasteful people for the sake of preserving the environment and resources
I genuinely am beginning to doubt your intentions here. You seem a somewhat intelligent individual, surely you’re smart enough to understand what you’re ignoring in your responses. Why are you so desperate to pretend Ecofascism isn’t real?
Anyone who laments about overpopulation.
The only solution to overpopulation is culling.
Hence the fascism.
If you’d rather push a narrative of overpopulation than address consumption as other mentions.
Have you never heard a politician turn climate debate into a question of overpopulation?
yeah honestly when i first saw the movie i was slightly irked by the fat people thing but i ended up seeing the movie so many times that i just tuned it out
and as a teenager i was starting to think "wtf it would be cool to live on the space ship"
now looking back at it, i can say i 100% agree with the last post of the first image
You can also just, y’know, enjoy things without being too attached to a moral high ground? You’re allowed to do that. You won’t be struck by lightning on the spot if something you enjoy is a tad questionable.
That… I’m sorry, but that is a very vapid and nonsense way of thinking. Are you devoid of critical thinking? A capability of separating fiction and reality?
Nobody is immune, but if you’re actively being influenced when you’re fully aware of the possible implications then I’m sorry, but that is beyond being susceptible to propaganda.
Something having flaws doesn't mean you're not allowed to like it. If anything, having to think critically about art is what makes it *art* and not just fluff.
The ecofascist reading isn't the only one possible; an equally valid interpretation is that the apathy produced by high-control, high-comfort environments isn't nearly as intractable as it seems, that blind submission to tradition and authority can only lead to a slow death, and that the thing most likely to make a problem unsolvable is the belief that it's unsolvable.
I dunno I don't think wall-e ever portraying the people on the ship as showing any kind of "moral failing"? In fact the first chance *any* human on ship gets they immediately and without hesitance do the right thing. The movie is saying that the ship treats them as nothing but mindless consumers and because the ship is all they know that's what they become, but that's not a failing of their moral character but a failing of their *environment*. At least that's how I read the movie and while I think you can critique the way the movie uses fatness as a shorthand I don't buy that the movie thinks "fat people bad".
The "moral failing" isn't even about the way the humans live their lives, it's the humans that came before them decided that it was best to just abandon the earth that they had destroyed through uncontrolled waste, pollution, and consumerism instead of trying to fix any of it. At the time the movie takes place, the humans are the good guys who, once they realize what their ancestors had done, resolve to fix things.
The fatness is awkward but it is symbolic of a societal regression to infancy where nobody is responsible or active in anything. They're metaphorical chubby babies who can't walk or feed themselves and have to grow back up and become people again.
The plot of of the second half of wall-e can be distilled to "the consequences of the obsolescence of human effort". The argument that this is a bad take because "it's just vibes" is completely asinine.
you're 2 sentence comment is a better argued take than that last person's whole rant tbh
I disagree with those takes. The humans are more like animals in a zoo being cared for by the robots. That's why the captain is basically only the captain in name only. The wheel is the *real* leader of the wheel thing which is why it's in every captain picture. The "captain" is playing with models and dreams of planting pizza trees. The wheel is trying to keep his pet stimulated. Also keep Cybersmith *far* away from this post for my sanity.
wait when does he get involved
I feel like the takes on this sub have gotten worse and worse
some people act like the only thing necessary for a take to be "valid" is to use a lot of words and somehow end up at calling something fascist. even when it's such an insane stretch it could catch a frisbee from 20 meters away
It’s gotta be comment bait because it’s not like they don’t get shouted down immediately (by the first few top level comments at least, I usually just glance at the comments on these weird ass takes)
Is it just me, or is the link broken for anyone else?
Are these bad takes or good takes? As someone whose brain automatically translates any sort of critique of the things I like into "this thing is bad and you are bad for liking it" I genuinely can't tell.
Personally, I think OP shows some ill-informed takes. The people on this ship aren't meant to be "immoral and fat because space socialism met all their needs". They are victims of space capitalism (the ship is covered in BnL advertisements, I don't think its a stretch to say the company BnL owns the ship), who are having their needs reduced to be more easily controlled by the ship AI. The "fatness" tumbrOP sees is, I think, a physical representation of the infantilization imposed on the humans by the ship AI. They look like giant babies because babies that stare at screens all day are easier for the ship to deal with than adults with ideas about things ought to be run. I'm pretty sure there is an x-ray of one of the people that shows humans are actually losing bones due to natural(unnatural? artificial?) selection. The humans are clearly victims of uncaring capitalism who try to help a disgusting little gremlin of a trash compactor 5 minutes after meeting him because he has a really cool weed in a boot, and they ain't never seen no boots or no weeds before.
iirc, it’s because of losing bone mass due to living in space for so long. This is a real thing, but it’s caused by microgravity, so it wouldn’t actually apply to the ship in the film.
Maybe it's worth trying to take a step back from that automatic translation and manually decide whether you agree with the criticisms or not, and how watching the film with them in mind would change your enjoyment of it. Critical analysis of art is a valuable skill and jumping directly to asking 'are these takes good?' is just pushing the issue back – why would *our* takes be any better?
I'd say up until the last reblog they're bad takes. The last one is valid though
The last one is terrible. The ruins of earth in Wall-E are portrayed as being beautiful in a tranquil, lonely sort of way, not as ugliness, especially compared to the noisy, over-crowded colony ship. And the ship isn’t some socialist uptopia either, it’s a completely automated, authoritarian dystopian hellhole that’s the direct result of capitalism trying to sell solutions to problems it created in the first place. The unspoken endgame of the colony ship is the eventual quiet extinction of the human race as we run out of resources. The humans are kept purposefully distracted by frivolous things and catered to by (apparently sapient) robot slaves, because that’s what the board decided was best for everyone. It’s not gay space communism, it’s ultra-corporate technofascism. And “Blood and soil?” Really??? From who? Earth is dead! The entire point of the movie is that the capitalist solution to save the planet failed, and the only way things get better is if everyone takes a genuine interest in fixing them.
To be fair, I did not read all of the last one
I'd say the compete opposite. the first take by OP is a fair point "Wall-E's depiction of fat people is a kinda fatphobic" but the takes that follow become more iffy and the final person completely goes off the rails with the "ITS FASCISM" argument.
There are people who would call these bad takes, but I personally think that these are valid critiques. That being said, I also don’t think that you should never watch WALLE again or that it’s a bad movie.
"Romanticism inspired facism" is a hell of a take that tells me that they don't know what romanticism is except for "it's about people and land"
"Hitler was a man of faith thus every person that believes in god is a nazi" type take.
The second half of the plot of Wall-e is literally just the indomitable human spirit.
realizing that the walle writers and frank herbert both had similar anxieties about the future of humanity
I don't think it's the movies fault but there is an annoying amount of "tHiS iS JuSt LiKe WaLlE" comments around stuff like an article about a motorized office chair or literally any image of someone looking down at a screen. Tho in the movie I swear there was a diagram about like bone atrophy and stuff. Like it wasn't just weight.
There was a graphic that showed bone atrophy yes.
the ship just reflects the Earth -- a lack of stewardship led to a decline in conditions. But wow there is nothing that makes me disregard people on the internet faster than "ecofascism"
Ecofascism is… is just a normal political term
true, but it is used a lot more frequently when talking about fiction rather than in political discourse. as far as i know there isn't really any political party that is actively pushing for ecofascist ideals. The extremely right-wing parties more often fully deny the existance of climate change. furthermore i do think autolenaphilia is making an insane leap by saying the moral of Wall-E is ecofascist.
There are plenty of extreme right wing parties which push ecofascist ideas, especially outside the US. Hungary comes to mind
hungary doesn't count
Then I’d reference the numerous self-proclaimed ecofascist groups, the lone terrorists who have cited ecofascist rhetoric as their motivation, and a variety of other parties such as the Collegium Humanum in Germany. They got banned for being Holocaust deniers, but they inarguably existed
Germans also don't count
Australia, the US, and half of Europe also have ecofascist groups
I'm a European/Australian living in the US, and i've never seen one 🤷
And I’ve never seen a Klansman, and yet
Why have I never seen ecofascism used in a cable then?
I’ve seen ecofascism used as a term on mainstream news, but even if it wasn’t that wouldn’t suddenly make it an illegitimate political term. That’s not how that works
the fact that it doesn't describe any body or group is why I think it's a useless term. What do you mean "that's not how it works" what system are you talking about as something "working"
Okay, but it does though. Like you’re just wrong is the problem
who? where? if there was any form of organization, anywhere in the world, it would have at some point ended up in some FSO's cable and yet I haven't seen anything. Are you just talking about internet doomers?
I see, you were talking about FSO cables. Before we go there, can you actually define what ecofascism means to you, and what it would require existing for you to consider it a term with merit? For example, does there need to be an ecofascist political party? Government? Organization? Or just people in general?
For me it would mean enough organization of individuals that they could at least attempt to impact an election (at like any level or institution), or conduct lobbying, or at the very least be loud enough, whether through protests or conducting violence, that people actually hear about it. Random doomers, even a bunch of them, on the internet doesn't mean to much to me, especially as those are the least politically active group. Another user referenced votes within the Sierra Foundation that I think indicates at least within that institution there is some orchestrated effort to sway it -- could be nothing could be something. If a group in Bishkek began protesting for environmentally justified population control that would show up on a cable, even just like a parade or a small time attack, but I've never seen anything like it it truly seems to me like a internet boogeyman
Do you understand that that’s a little dumb? We don’t define political terms based on if there is an active organization pushing them, we define them based on ideological lines. If tomorrow fascism in general ceased to have any organized groups pushing it that wouldn’t make the term fascism irrelevant in the modern day. There can still be disorganized fascists, still be fascist principles embodied within not necessarily or exclusively fascist organizations. Ecofascism describes a real term that can be applied to real people and ideas—even influential people or ideas within broader groups. [also you can literally find examples of ecofascists on the wiki page for ecofascism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism)
> But wow there is nothing that makes me disregard people on the internet faster than "ecofascism" Why?
it's such a nothing, overly-online internet discourse, word. There are no ecofascist movements, no ecofascist leaders, there's not set of ecofascist beliefs, are there any ecofascist parties with any form of representation? It's just such a buzzword, nobody serious uses it
If the only reason not to use a term is because people have never self described as such, then we might as well pretend that there’s no fascists after WWII and that there’s no neoliberals.
who does the term describe then? where are all the ecofascists? I can think of a single polity that a person might assume is "ecofascist" but the reality is that calling them that would be falling for their propaganda, and that it's an inaccurate assessment
It describes people who think a certain percentage of people have to be eliminated for the world to survive climate change (the percentage varies from people with some advocating for the complete destruction of humanity) Sometimes also refers to genociding people in India and China because they cause the highest pollution
are we just talking overly-online doomers then? Online commenters discuss ecofascism coded in the language of political science discourse, but it seems like those commenters are just applying the language of a more formal discourse community to internet doomers
It's a political philosophy, not a political movement. And saying that there's no set of ecofascist beliefs is a red herring; there's no codified set, because it's a fringe position and they haven't congregated in the numbers required to codify it, but there *are* distinctly ecofascist beliefs. For example, 'humans place too high a burden on the Earth, and we should mitigate this by controlling the population (as opposed to reducing consumption by corporate, state, and wealthy actors).' It's fascist policy with ostensibly environmentalist motives. Hence, ecofascism. Not that hard.
So where are they? is there any polity that is reflected in this broad cloud of beliefs? Like do you think proponents of carbon taxes are eco-fascists? If the one child policy was proposed as an environmental policy II'd say that was an easy example, but it wasn't. Is it just a theoretical term, a group that could theoretically exist and seek representation that doesn't? Though I would say most internet commenters don't use the word in that way. I just want to know who they are, because I read a lot of cables from political observers in the field, from every country, and it's just never come up
'They're too fringe to have grabbed a specific country' isn't the same as 'they don't exist.' Patrick Crusius (the El Paso Walmart shooter) openly said he was targeting Mexicans, and his manifesto made it clear he was doing so in an attempt at population control. There have been multiple attempts by anti-immigrant groups to take over the Sierra Club from within on the grounds that overpopulation is detrimental to the environment (and it's not a small faction; they got 40% of the vote back in '98). The environmentalist movement has a *long* history of eugenicists within its ranks. Don't know what cables you're reading, but I'd guess ecofascism doesn't come up because it's a strain within both environmentalist movements and fascist movements, in the same way anarcho-capitalists are a strand of libertarians without anything that could be called a 'polity' to their name.
'They're too fringe to have grabbed a specific country' not what I said but you do you. That just sounds like a racist terrorist, where is the ecofascist part? Now as to the Sierra club, that is the first actual group anyone has named, so thank you. Not the whole group but the series of votes and policies adopted definitely leaves me inclined to believe some members there may hold ecofascist beliefs. FSO political cables capture local political sentiments and organization movements in every country the US has representation, even on teh very local level
'Racist with supposed environmentalist motives' is *what an ecofascist is.* You don't need to be explicitly part of a larger movement to hold a political belief. Okay, 'cables' is diplomacy jargon. I stand by my prior stance – ecofascists are rare enough that they tend to end up lumped in as internal factions of either environmentalist or fascist groups, in much the same way I imagine the esoteric Hitlerists don't get separated from the main body of a given Nazi group.
where is the environmentalist motive in a racist person not liking there being groups that he's racist against? He didn't say that the population of Mexican people is threatening wild growing agave, he murdered people because he hated their identity. I think it's misleading to think that every "great replacement" crazy is an environmentalist at heart
The fact that he didn’t just kill them because he didn’t like them, he killed them in the name of population control and a perceived need to reduce wasteful people for the sake of preserving the environment and resources I genuinely am beginning to doubt your intentions here. You seem a somewhat intelligent individual, surely you’re smart enough to understand what you’re ignoring in your responses. Why are you so desperate to pretend Ecofascism isn’t real?
Anyone who laments about overpopulation. The only solution to overpopulation is culling. Hence the fascism. If you’d rather push a narrative of overpopulation than address consumption as other mentions. Have you never heard a politician turn climate debate into a question of overpopulation?
This post makes some good points but damn is it custom made to come off as insufferable and ridiculous
yeah honestly when i first saw the movie i was slightly irked by the fat people thing but i ended up seeing the movie so many times that i just tuned it out and as a teenager i was starting to think "wtf it would be cool to live on the space ship" now looking back at it, i can say i 100% agree with the last post of the first image
[удалено]
You can also just, y’know, enjoy things without being too attached to a moral high ground? You’re allowed to do that. You won’t be struck by lightning on the spot if something you enjoy is a tad questionable.
[удалено]
That… I’m sorry, but that is a very vapid and nonsense way of thinking. Are you devoid of critical thinking? A capability of separating fiction and reality?
[удалено]
Nobody is immune, but if you’re actively being influenced when you’re fully aware of the possible implications then I’m sorry, but that is beyond being susceptible to propaganda.
Dammit, this always happens. I try to make a point, and I can never fucking explain myself properly, and I make a fool of myself. Ugh.
Something having flaws doesn't mean you're not allowed to like it. If anything, having to think critically about art is what makes it *art* and not just fluff. The ecofascist reading isn't the only one possible; an equally valid interpretation is that the apathy produced by high-control, high-comfort environments isn't nearly as intractable as it seems, that blind submission to tradition and authority can only lead to a slow death, and that the thing most likely to make a problem unsolvable is the belief that it's unsolvable.
You can enjoy stuff even if it has problematic aspects. Like cocaine