no, because there is no such thing as universal happiness.
everyone's happiness is different, and often conflicting.
for example, my father's happiness would have been me playing football. I hated sports. hence, he hated me until he died for 'hurting him'.
That really sucks. Can practically feel the tension through your post. What a bummer… shouldn’t kill anybody to let somebody else be happy doing their own thang (and be happy not necessarily copying another person’s thang).
Less importantly:
When I think about 'universal happiness', I’d think it’s more about creating conditions where everyone has the opportunity to pursue their own version of happiness, rather than imposing a single idea of happiness on everyone.
This is a strange exclusionary way of considering happiness, tbh.
Like even if I want, and maybe even would be most happy, to sit down in front of a plate of duck a l'orange for dinner doesn't mean I can't or won't be perfectly happy eating a sirloin steak for dinner instead
Edit: for clarity, I am referring to your father's view on happiness, not your response to it
Um... they are called the Warner Brothers (and the Warner Sister). Is he non binary now?
It's a joke based on Yakko not having a gender. Which doesn't make sense. Therefore my confusion.
I wouldn't say that's how jokes work. Some things need to be established first. The joke is not, that he is non binary. It's a play with words, "agenda" in this case. Him being genderless is supposed to be the baseline. This is contradicted by him being a Warner brother. So the joke is already falling apart during the setup. If the joke was about him being a chicken, it wouldn't have made sense either, because it was never established before. And can't explained with cartoon logic.
It feels like people are automatically mad at me for criticizing the joke, because the topic is gender politics. I never said he can't be non binary, I don't care, but there was never a basis for this. Or so I thought. As others have pointed out, there apparently was an episode or a comic where this was mentioned.
Do you take Wile.E.Coyote running into a wall after the roadrunner runs through it literally too?
Which doesn’t make sense. Therefore my confusion.
There are people who do not identify as having a gender, this is commonly referred to as "Agender". People who identify as Agender may not identify with the concept of gender, some may attempt to present gender neutral, while others may not make an effort to present any specific way. It's one of the many NonBinary identities, that is people who don't identify as exclusively male or female. I can understand though that for some it might be confusing as it has only been receiving mainstream recognition relatively recently.
There's a panel from the Animaniacs comic where Wakko states that his gender is "other". It floats around the internet ever few years. The comic was, I believe, back in the 90s so I'm not sure I'd say "now". They have always used the term "brother" and he/him pronouns for Wakko though.
•
The show is politically charged because... there's an enby person? Or am I misunderstanding you
Sure, let's pretend the gender stuff ISNT a current political issue, and ignore all the political jokes the show makes, and then imply some bullshit like I have an issue with NB because I said "politically charged" because why not? Fuck off. My partner is part of the community.
id wager that gender expression (or lack of) isnt a political issue, our rights being stripped is the political issue. same goes for racial segregation, a person of color isnt a political issue, the wrongs done to that person are
•
You're absolutely right, and I'm sorry for jumping to the worst assumption. I'm gonna take this as a sign to log off and touch some grass. /gen
In the remake’s theme song;
“We’re gender balanced, pronoun neutral, and ethnically diverse!”
While the fun is in the fast pronunciation of longer words, they’re pointing to a split gender diagram chart between Yakko (male), Dot (female) and Wakko (split). So even if it’s based in a joke from old episodes, WB seems to have run with it.
Yup! They did a remake in 2020, never watched it myself cause Hulu but I've heard some good things about it.
Since the new episodes are produced by Hulu, I'd say it still counts as one even though the show originated elsewhere.
I cannot aggre with your position, sir, however I will defend your right to be wrong with my life.
Not originally, but this does sound like the kind of boundary pushing puny joke they'd make to make the straights slightly uncomfortable.
[No no no. Finger Prints.
I don't think so.](https://youtu.be/lY2kC5fZG64?si=uPoB4wzgMdvy6e-J)
While I like the joke, Wakko is actually a boy. He had a crush on Miss Bambon, so one could assume hetro. Humorously, Dot also had a crush on her. 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
•
I agree that se is obvious supposed to be a boy, but I don't understand your premise. You can be agender and have a crush on a woman.
Also true. But we must consider the fact that when the show was airing, though I'm sure non-binary people certainly must have existed at the time, non-binary was not something that was part of the mainstream consciousness. So would not have been acceptable in a kids show. And though I'm not sure it would even be acceptable in today's day and age by most mainstream standards, it's more acceptable now than it was 30 years ago.
On top of that it's very likely that most real people at that time who would likely identify as non-binary would not have identified themselves as such and would have chosen a he/she pronoun of some sort to identify themselves in order to conform to the social standard of that time.
Still, we should celebrate the characters who are designed to be nonbinary, to represent that community, not try to decide for that character 30 years later.
Right, to me it feels dishonest and pandering to change a character later like this. I don't feel it's winning points with anyone.
Oh, nevermind then. Yall, no points can be given, this person feels it.
I'm glad you were here to discount the other posters who were enjoying it. That was a close one.
Someone holds a different opinion and is engaging in civil discussion. Boo, not allowed >:[
Nah. Abed in Community is the best example of how you can have great representation for a group (autistic people) even if the character wasn't initially written with that trait in mind. He was initially just written as a character, not an autistic character. Animaniacs had plenty of gender fuckery going on that kids like me noticed in the 90s
I did notice it that too. All of them wore clothes opposite of their perceived gender at one point. But it’s a cartoon. They are genderless. And not in a nonbinary way. They are whatever the script tells them to be.
But we must consider the fact that when the show was airing,
Hulu rebooted it in 2020. The latest season was released in February, 2023.
He's a Warner sibling, which means that at any moment he's exactly whatever is necessary for the joke to work.
I definitely read this in their voices
"And remember kids! Yakko spelled backwards is Okkay"
Wacko is addicted to Don Knots comedy, you can always catch him watching old episodes of Matlock just for the guest appearance's.
That used to be a running joke on the 90's version of that show.
Non-binary people don't fit neatly into the gender binary but might still associate with a gender, agender people meanwhile have no gender. Someone can be both or either one (I'm personally both).
This is firmly in the realm of semantic definition that most people don't need to know IMO, definitely not in casual conversation. Like the precise botanical definition of a nut, 'true crabs' vs other kinds of crabs, and other such specialised definitions in various fields of study. For everyday discussion, broad labels are fine. Non-binary, agender, gender-fluid and maybe more that I'm ignorant of can all kinda be used interchangeably in most contexts and I think there's nothing disrespectful in that. Expecting more is expecting too much.
If talking with one's therapist about it or in circles where this is a main topic of discussion, yeah precise terms are useful, but outside of that it's fine to mix them up.
I just felt this needed to be said. I'm absolutely in favour of people like you chiming in with the definition though, in the right context like here.
They all mean very different things, using non binary and agender interchangeably is one thing but using non binary and genderfluid interchangeably is completely different
Maybe it's wrong, but do you think everyone in the world should know this? Though fwiw I don't think gender-fluid is (or should be) used as a generic term for the others, the others feel more generic. I just wouldn't think it comes from disrespect if someone does.
Gender-fluid is more like a superposition on the binary. You can collapse the wave function and take a measurement but a split-second later it could be different.
I lived in Burbank for a decade, and drove by the water tower a couple days a week.
Oh how frequently I wished they would come bouncing out.
Not necessarily. Nonbinary covers a broad range of gender identities that don't all exclusively use they/them.
Also pronouns aren't necessarily dependent on gender, they're dependent on the person's pronoun preferences. Even someone who seems like they might use a specific set of pronouns based on their gender might use a different set of pronouns, as an example I knew someone who is a demiboy and they go by any pronouns.
We will finally achieve world peace when people realize gender, sex, and pronouns can be separate
It should be whatever Wakko prefers. Perfectly fine for a nonbinary person to use "he".
Edit: And also, pretty sure that's another layer to the joke. Cause Wakko is just out there living his life while the world spins around him making definitions and boxes that have no bearing on how he lives.
When I dived back into Animaniacs a few years ago, I was very happy that the episodes that I watched had aged really well.
Edit: Words are important for context
And now Spacetoon will forever forget this cartoon ever existed (because it has definitely aired it before)
That's a completely different thing, because it's on purpose to match the "agenda" word, while "nonbinery" on purpose or not, is what someone who doesn't read much would write, as a non native English speaker I'm kinda pedantic about such errors
I am one of the <1% that vote Green.
My only agenda is shouting into the void because I am effectively powerless.
Just because you can't solve everything all on your own doesn't mean you're effectively powerless.
What does make you powerless is refusing to act because you have to be part of a crowd to help, instead of some lone avenging angel who can solve everything with a snap of their fingers.
No, what makes me powerless is that 99% of people who vote make the same choices every election regardless of the quality of the candidate.
And that, I definitely cannot change.
At some point in history, voting was about picking the best, most qualified candidate.
In recent years, voting has become picking the person that makes the other color lose.
I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of what their country has become.
At some point in history, voting was about picking the best, most qualified candidate.
In recent years, voting has become picking the person that makes the other color lose.
I got some bad news for you buddy
This issue is not recent by any stretch of the imagination.
Also the founding fathers sucked and were constantly drunk slave holders.
Also the founding fathers sucked and were constantly drunk slave holders.
Hey now, let a man have his drink now and again, or we'll put another tax on whiskey.
The best Founding Fathers were the abolitionists among them, though. Most of the slave-holders who shat up the founding are long-forgotten by popular culture, except for Jefferson and Madison.
I imagine most would be pleased. They only ever wanted the voice of wealthy men to matter in the first place, and now it's the supreme law of the land.
I don't think so, they were trying to get away from a government that pushed too heavily onto the people. Regardless, it was a question that can never have an answer, since we cannot ask them.
When they created the United States, their Constitution only allowed the vote to wealthy male landowners.
They'd be exceedingly pleased with the way things turned out. They never wanted common people to have any real voice beyond dying for wealthy people's property.
No reason to hide it.
The shameful thing is being a proud Democrat or Republican after the last 40 years of regression for the American people.
That is a falsehood.
You all deprive yourselves of our votes by failing to follow through on your promises, along with those of the half of this country that can't afford to miss a desperately needed day's pay in order to vote for someone they know is only going to ignore them once elected.
Your party is the problem. You don't get to beat people down and then pretend you're the aggrieved party because they didn't stand up with blood pouring down their faces and ask for more.
Yeah it's a falsehood unless you look at what the options are and have some ideas of what the future holds, which we do
What you're doing is entirely self-interested jerking, only useful to feel (falsely af) superior
I gotta say your username makes a lot of sense in this context. No concern for working together with others
I know.
We have no power. I'm just shouting into the void because it's the only recourse I have.
The concentration camp was never the normal condition for the average gentile German. Unless one were Jewish, or poor and unemployed, or of active leftist persuasion or otherwise openly anti-Nazi, Germany from 1933 until well into the war was not a nightmarish place. All the “good Germans” had to do was obey the law, pay their taxes, give their sons to the army, avoid any sign of political heterodoxy, and look the other way when unions were busted and troublesome people disappeared.
Since many “middle Americans” already obey the law, pay their taxes, give their sons to the army, are themselves distrustful of political heterodoxy, and applaud when unions are broken and troublesome people are disposed of, they probably could live without too much personal torment in a fascist state — some of them certainly seem eager to do so.
- Michael Parenti. (1996). Fascism in a Pinstriped Suit
Many people have been living under fascism in the United States for decades, suffering under explicitly racist police and judiciary systems, fighting against explicitly fascist foreign policy, and trying to wake people up to the explicitly fascist rhetoric of both democrats and republicans.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,<— you are here
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
"everything I don't like is fascism"
Almost every presidential election I write in a name because neither two major candidates deserve my vote. Glad I get to help "usher in fascism".
Please keep voting.
Would I recommend you vote differently than you say? Maybe, but so what. Just please vote, and encourage others to vote.
You are not powerless, but on Lemmy you may feel like your opinion doesn't matter due to the overwhelming liberal population.
LOL
It's not a bad thing to be a Green Party supporter. Do you not support democracy?
Oh wait, we're talking about Democrats here. They only pay lip service to Democracy for their party alone.
Green Party is good politically, but they'll never win unfortunately. So by voting Green Party you are only wasting your vote.
No, I'm wasting my vote by rubber stamping the two parties who've ruined the American experience over these last four decades.
Sounds like If you don't vote Biden you are wasting your vote. Good thing we have choices