this is vaguely related to the string theory related post from a day or two ago, it's all bazinga science folks TL;DW string theory is a big thing because people that read pop science really liked it and it took a long time for physicists to come out in force and say "this is untestable garbage"
Given that we are living on a world that has and is facing apocalypse so powerful people can have treats they don't enjoy there is some artistic merrit there.
I am saying the scope of the conversation keeps sliding back and forth in ways that are not useful or interesting
You're not saying anything new, you're only moving the goalposts around and around from "it's just a silly cartoon" to "it has profound universal truths about how everyone would be Rick Sanchez if given the chance" to "it's art" to "stop criticizing the art, that's policing" and back to the start again and again.
Because of that, I will reply as I warned you I will reply to your ongoing sophistry: Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
This is not a twitch debate. Moving the goalposts isn't real in a conversation. A silly cartoon can have intresting themes and remain unimportant. You can portray a thing without endorsement. I don't see the point of consuming treats if you are going to give it a friendly read
Whatever you claim it is, post by post, goalpost movement by goalpost movement, seems to change constantly. You want the edgy show made by the domestically violent racist pedophile to be "just a silly cartoon" until it's to be considered art, until it's supposed to be some great analysis of humanity as a whole which you hold in apparently dismally low contempt, but it's also art that can't be criticized because that's "policing."
So can Mein Kampt, Birth of a Nation, the Turner Diaries, and Atlas Shrugged. But they can and will be called out for terrible ideology and as propaganda that has driven destructive movements.
I call bullshit here because that only seems to be the authors' intent when they get called out for what is portrayed, over and over again, with the atrocities and cruelties presented for entertainment purposes and as comedy for that matter to the taste of Roiland and Harmon themselves, with characters presented with immunity to lasting consequences that are more often than not admired by the loud and obnoxious side of their fandoms.
You really don't understand art criticism if you think that "criticism" has to be "friendly" to be acceptable.
Again, I'll say it again because your goalpost moving Olympics are otherwise not worth further comment:
Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
So we are just disagreeing over weather a show having a character being miserable countd as it showing them being miserable?
You're refusing to accept that a story can be told with just about the same themes and ideas without an emphasis on gratuitous violence, cruelty, torture, and toxic nihilistic sermonizing. I gave an example of a show that did very similar things without Roiland's creepy fetishes and preoccupations (Bojack Horseman) and you responded by burying that example in false equivalencies about how fucking Arthur from the children's cartoon is equally as bad as Rick Sanchez because... reasons.
I will keep saying it because you keep replying with nothing but sophistry and goalpost moving: Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.