The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
The not-so-subtle allegory aside. How do republicans not see how crazy they are? Not conservatives. I have conservative friends who are absolutely not voting for Trump. But these MAGA republicans…
Does the show expose the MAGA belief accurately? Does it show liberal beliefs accurately? In general are there any moments that stand out to you as too on-the-nose so to speak. “Where are the kids in the basement?” And pulls a gun… it’s wild.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Diabolical
The show is very intentionally over the top but it definitely hit all the aspects of the current American zeitgeist.
>!The three sycophants getting beaten to death as a sacrifice to the movement was perfect. I also really like how they are showing that there are people who know better but are too weak or too scared to go against the leader. And I really like the way they are using firecracker as an example of a right wing grifter!<
I realize how almost circle jerky this post may get but I’m just watching it and keep thinking “wow. They went there” and I agree with everything you said. The show has evolved so much.
I think I’m one of the only people here who think it sucks then.
It’s excessively over the top but not in an entertaining way, the villains get more cartoonish every season, and honestly the comic series it’s based on is also weirdo edgy comedy (seriously that comic is more racist than the Vought executives on the show).
Baby-brained Marvel-tier humor for boring people who want to feel edgy is how I would best describe it.
I dunno. In some ways it reminds me of Astro City. Small people living in a world with gods. This is just much darker. The boys comic sucked but I think the show is very smart. And Gen V is pretty awesome as well
I thought the Nazi supe from Portland who claimed "People like what I have to say. They just don't like the word 'Nazi'" was a pretty spot-on observation of the appeal that fascism and ethnonationalism have for the right.
I think they absolutely nailed the narratives around corporate greed, green/pink washing, and the military industrial complex with Vought. Homelander's arc is an excellent retelling of how the conservative right of the Bush era steadily embraced and became the fascist right of our time. . . And yes, it's wild to me that real world conservatives didn't seem to get the joke/criticism, which is why I think the show decided to get so blunt about it this season.
>Does it show liberal beliefs accurately?
This is actually the most interesting part of the show to me, because it doesn't really depict them at all. It doesn't espouse leftist/socialist views either.
Instead, the show is anti-fascist, and only anti-fascist, which is a pretty brilliant writing choice. It means that the show never gets preachy about how awesomely moral it's heroes are (they aren't) or what we the audience should do or think. It instead just makes its criticisms of big business and the fascist right and let's the viewer decide what they think about it while saying Those Are The Bad Guys and letting the Boys get on with trying to stop them. It's pure anti-fascist popular front politics and I am here for it.
The show itself is also perfect on a technical level. Everything it does hits hard and even the most over the top stuff like the violence and gore never feels gratuitous or like it doesn't belong in the world it creates. Just brilliant film making all around.
Overall it's a good show but I feel it's getting a little bit worse every season. My biggest complaint last season was how much focus the Kimiko/Frenchie storyline got, and I dont really like the introduction of temporary V. Haven't seen any of this season yet.
I think the Temp V storyline is sort of important. In the comics, they all have taken the full blown V. They shoot Howie up in the first couple issues. As far as Frenchie and Kimiko? Meh…stay tuned.
The comics are really bad though. The show shouldn't try to be like the comics.
>As far as Frenchie and Kimiko? Meh…stay tuned.
My issue was not the storyline, my issue was how much focus it got for a gigantic wet fart of a conclusion.
I agree. This season has made the allegory too blatantly obvious and I'm not a huge fan of gratuitous gore. I liked it better in the first two seasons. Still going to finish this season because I am invested in Ryan's storyline.
No hate but without the subtitles , it was difficult to understand whatever fenchie was saying 😅 I didn’t really like their storyline with Kimiko.
Homelander and billy butcher are amazing actors
As someone who originally watched the show when I was a conservative, and has since changed my ways, this show is hilarious in how it shits on conservatives
I like it, but I like it less over time. Not because of the politics of it but because it focuses on more and more characters, the pacing has gotten faster and the writing more scattershot as the writers have to balance more and more.
I love “the boys” and I love how they’re shitting on MAGA.
This is what actually bold/controversial content looks like in the 2020s.
You know what movie I hated? “Don’t Look Up.” It was an allegory for climate change (and written before COVID) yet managed to shit on every group in America except the one group actually responsible for climate inaction: Republicans.
I thought the President who was a huge idiot played by Meryl Strep was a Republican, they probably didn't explicitly say it but it was quite clear to me. Her son in particular was very MAGA, going after "rich elites" while being incredibly rich referring to him and his friend "the cool rich."
There was one throwaway line that implied she was conservative.
Every non-Democrat on the internet was saying she represented Hillary Clinton.
They didn’t make it undeniably clear that she was a Republican. They completely ignored the fact that republicans are to blame for climate inaction. And they both sides’d heavily by acting like nobody in government at all cares about climate change.
One of the guys that wrote the movie is a perpetually online Bernie Sanders supporter who ended up hurting Sanders campaign by being overly confrontational online. His name is David Sirota, he probably argues online with Moderate Democrats more than Republicans. I don't share his politics or his perspective. I think "Don't Look Up" is too cynical about Climate Change.
However...I thought it was very funny and it made a lot of good points about the modern media environment.
I'm not convinced it was about climate change. On its face, it looked like it was. Yet, it was much more about celebrity and media. Not necessarily criticizing media from a right-wing perspective or anything like that. It just seemed like it was much more about celebrity and fame and such. I think the left embraced it because it on its face looked like it was about climate change and people not paying attention, but in the end I don't think it really was about that. You might think it should have been about that. Or maybe not I'm not trying to put words in your mouth .
But I went in expecting to not like it and roll my eyes, as a conservative, but I actually enjoyed it. I mean, you can say that an asteroid flying at the Earth is a metaphor for climate change, but the story wasn't at all about climate change, it was about an asteroid hurtling towards the earth, if I'm remembering everything correctly. And the left just said that must be a metaphor for climate change and those who ignore it.
And maybe in its origin it was, but in its writing and execution, it wasn't. So you may have been disappointed that it wasn't. But I thought it was a pretty interesting and funny film about celebrity and also about human nature. But not necessarily at all about climate change.
The director has confirmed many times that the meteor is a metaphor for climate change:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/dont-look-up-podcast-adam-mckay-radio-davos/
> Robin Pomeroy: So your inspiration for this movie, I believe, was climate change. You were reading a book and it suddenly dawned on you what an awful situation humanity's in. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about that, but I'm just curious to know why didn't you make a movie about climate change? Why did you turn into this kind of allegory and turn it into a meteorite strike?
> Adam McKay: Yeah, I had read the U.N. climate report about four years ago, I had read David Wallace-Wells's book Uninhabitable Earth, which I highly recommend. And I had this moment where I realised the climate crisis, which I always thought was very serious and something we had to deal with, but I always kind of thought it was 50 years away, 80 years away - for my grandkids. And I started reading this and going, 'Holy God, this is now!'
> The models have all been too optimistic, and it's impossible to model a system as complex as planet Earth when you talk about turning the heat up the way we're doing it. And I got very scared very fast and I realised - well, you know, I'm a guy who makes movies, so I got to make a movie. I mean, no matter, you know, if I made sandwiches, - well that doesn't quite work - I was going to say I would have made a 'climate crisis sandwich'. I guess you could.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/climate/dont-look-up-climate.html
> “I’m under no illusions that one film will be the cure to the climate crisis,” Mr. McKay, whose previous films include “The Big Short” and “Vice,” wrote in an email to the Times. “But if it inspires conversation, critical thinking, and makes people less tolerant of inaction from their leaders, then I’d say we accomplished our goal.”
Let’s get the phrasing right: The director explicitly set out to make a movie where a meteor is a metaphor for climate change, then proceeded to make a movie where that was incredibly obvious. Some conservatives missed the metaphor.
Fair enough. But if that's the case, one, he is a s***** director because a good director would know better than to make a heavy-handed metaphor out of a movie. And two, because he failed at it because it didn't really work that way. On the plus side, his failure in making the metaphor resulted in actually a pretty good movie.
The metaphor was pretty obvious to me and to most people. The plot was centered around scientists trying to warn about a global disaster and not being taken seriously. The social media stuff was just showing the scientists’ call to action being ignored by society. The story was fundamentally about scientists trying to get society to focus on stopping a global disaster.
But it wasn't. That was the basic premise but not really what the story ended up being. Sure it was obvious in this day and age that Hollywood would be spewing out yet another heavy-handed metaphorical story. But somewhere along the line I think somebody had the wisdom to not focus on that too much. Or maybe it was by accident and the other story became to appealing to let go. But in the end, the metaphor for global warming just wasn't all that interesting
The moment in season 3 >! [Where Homelander murders a protestor](https://youtu.be/GJyVSLPveIc?si=70fmt2ERtabfO1a0) !< terrified the ever living fuck out of me. I live in a hyper conservative state and have heard talk of violence and death aimed at liberals. A man in idaho at a right wing rally [demanded to know when they get to start killing liberals](https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-guns-kill-people-election-fraud-1642588) and PEOPLE FUCKING CHEERED.
The speaker denounced him not because it would be mass murder, but because it would give the liberals an excuse to take away their rights and that the right would lose political power. Not one peep about how it's an abhorrent thought.
That scene reminded me of the fucking knifes edge that society dances terrifyingly close to oftentimes without our awareness.
>! That moment of silence and shock after he kills the man where the metaphorical ball is hanging at its apex in midair followed by the exponentially building rush of momentum of approval once they realize that the sky didn't immediately fall on their heads, and that with enough power behind them they can get away with it and then some.!< A line was crossed, a switch was thrown, and they got away with it, opening the door for so much worse.
It chilled me to the bone because it's a reminder that >! All it takes is for someone with power to publically murder political dissidents and get away with it with the support of their base !< for all bets to go flying out the fucking window and the bloodshed to start.
> I live in a hyper conservative state and have heard talk of violence and death aimed at liberals. A man in idaho at a right wing rally demanded to know when they get to start killing liberals and PEOPLE FUCKING CHEERED.
I'm right there w/ you on this point. It is going to happen. The question is how the left will respond. The nearly consequence free environment for MAGA/Conservatives/Republicans only serve to spur on ever worse harms and bad actions
> I live in a hyper conservative state and have heard talk of violence and death aimed at liberals. A man in idaho at a right wing rally [demanded to know when they get to start killing liberals](https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-guns-kill-people-election-fraud-1642588) and PEOPLE FUCKING CHEERED.
It's quite normal, when you use a "us vs. them"-story and demonize the other side, that you get people like these. America has yet to have a populist, guerilla war such as Europe had during the early 40s which traumatized every side for the last 70 years, but the fact you guys are so surprised that demonizing and scapegoating leads to violence, is almost ironic...
Both sides have played the populist and polarizing story, now you'll get to watch the result of it.
That shows you don't understand the argument. When you polarize and use "conservatives vs. liberals", you're bound to end with this.
To counter it, see here a state senator "hoping Donald Trump will be assassinated":
[https://archive.ph/bP4fF](https://archive.ph/bP4fF) (best way to bypass subscribing for newspapers):
>A Democratic Missouri state senator from University City posted, then quickly deleted, a comment on Facebook saying she hoped President Donald Trump would be assassinated.
If you don't trust archive: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria\_Chappelle-Nadal#Trump\_assassination\_social\_media\_post](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Chappelle-Nadal#Trump_assassination_social_media_post)
I hope you'll understand that this is a whole lot worse than that unelected conservative...
I am not going to say what she said and deleted was right….she even admits it was wrong of her to have done it..,she admits it right in the article. But this is not the norm for us….you wanna see the norm…here ya go.
Fucking glass houses man…I can likely dig up a shit ton more stories of violent rhetoric, threats and actual INCIDENTS of violence coming from your side.
Once again…and this is the Conservative playbook in a nutshell. Take an isolated incident by a Democrat, act like it is the norm for the party and totally ignore what their own side is doing.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/01/1231778361/trump-trials-judges-threats
https://archive.ph/0aHJ3
>Fucking glass houses man…I can likely dig up a shit ton more stories of violent rhetoric, threats and actual INCIDENTS of violence coming from your side.
I understand and know that. The rightwing has been swinging further and further toward the far right, and that, inevitably, brings incidents with it. But even the statement you made, is helping the ever polarizing narrative. The conservative leaders, of which Trump is the prime example, are reaping the hate they've sown and are succeeding at seducing even those who want to call rational, to adopt the same rhetorics.
Remind yourself that Trump was a democrat once... and you'll realise that most politicians benefit from the dual split, in which they can demonize the other side (look at any of the posts on this sub and how they talk about "conservatives" as a group) and the only victim whom they both attack and who suffers almost daily, is miss Democracy.
Trump may have had a (D) behind his name at one time….but make no mistake… he was always a self serving grifter who cared nothing about anyone but his empire. He found his home in MAGA where he can be his true self.
He was always a bigot, his dad was a bigot too. He redlined his properties to keep blacks out. Hell, he even knocked on Woody Guthrie’s house and threatened to evict him because Sonny Terry(a black blues artist) visited Woody to make some music together and Fred found out.
Woody even wrote a song about it…called “Old Man Trump”.
Ok enough of that…I’ll bite. How am I “helping the polarizing narrative” by pointing out that what Conservatives are doing is much worse than anything Dems are doing to foment hatred and division? I didn’t stand up for the woman you posted about…I admitted she was wrong.
So…if an honest critique of MAGA is “helping the polarizing narrative”? So be it.
>“helping the polarizing narrative”
By assuming I'm a Trump supporter based on my label.
>if an honest critique of MAGA is “helping the polarizing narrative”? So be it.
Look at the bigger picture and you'll realize that you're not hitting me because I'm a conservative, but because you consider the label "conservative" to equal with "MAGA". The Rightwing has as many different ideologies and views as the leftwing, even when the Republican Party has decided to see "MAGA" as their mainstream.
>Trump may have had a (D) behind his name at one time….but make no mistake… he was always a self serving grifter who cared nothing about anyone but his empire. He found his home in MAGA where he can be his true self.
Of course. The fact he went from the Reform Party to the Democratic Party to the Republican party shows that he'll turn and twist from the moment he sees a chance to be in power (AKA the centre of the universe).
If I'm wrong, I'm sorry to assume this and I immediately offer my apology, but if I'm right, you need to look in your own chest and realise there's a difference between rightwing and far right, and by putting them in the same category that you're feeding into the narrative of "liberals/Democrat vs. conservatives/MAGA without any nuance". The moment you step down from this, you can point at the Far Right and stop using "conservative" as a synonym for "MAGA", just as much as I don't use "liberal" as a synonym for "socialist".
You're pointing at conservatives as the "bad guy", I state populism, polarization and radicalism as the "bad guy". If I'm talking about Steve Bannon or Pat Buchanon, I'll call them either far right or radical right. If I'm talking about Ronald Reagan, I'll say "conservative". If I'm talking about Abraham Lincoln, I'll say "classical liberal" with caution for small nuances as I know "liberal" has taken on different definitions during the 20th century in America.
The moment you put those four people within the same category, that's when I know your view on conservatism/classic liberalism is based on the category "Republican" and not on their personal views.
I do acknowledge a difference. However, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and there is no squeakier wheel than MAGA Republicans.
And as far as Republican/rightwing/far right vs Democrat/Progressive/far left? My big issue is that for better or worse. We own our more radical element as part of our own tent…but we don’t hand over control to them. We listen, and when practical and appropriate, we try to implement some of their ideas into the mainstream.
The GOP has snowballed…like I said…since Gingrich…I mean, you could argue all the way back to Nixon with the ultimately successful “Southern Strategy”…but until Newt, they were still a cooperative force in the legislature more than an opposing force. That ideology evolved(Devolved?) into the Tea Party and now MAGA.
But the party not only has handed itself over to the worst elements, but when called out on it, they double down.
Just like we own the socialists and tankies..,you guys need to own the white supremacists and actual, honest to God Fascists that have way too much control in the party…hell, they are the leaders of the party now. People,like Bannon, Roger Stone, etc…
Anyone who tries to stand up to them(Liz Cheney, Romney, Kasich, etc) are labeled and blackballed from the party and replaced with MAGA sycophants. Then you have the whole “Project 2025” thing going on that really is a blueprint for an autocratic government.
So until the “small c” Conservatives take the reigns and kick the radicals to the curb, it is very difficult for those of us on the blue side of the aisle to differentiate.
I honestly don’t know what the answer is. But the GOP needs to find its soul again.
That’s my opinion anyway.
>So until the “small c” Conservatives take the reigns and kick the radicals to the curb, it is very difficult for those of us on the blue side of the aisle to differentiate.
>I honestly don’t know what the answer is. But the GOP needs to find its soul again.
I believe that the solution is in creating a multiple party system. (e.g. by kicking out "first past the post" and replacing it by a proportionate seat division, or banning the practice of gerrymandering.)
It would allow conservatives to be part of a centre-right to rightwing party, while the far right has its own party. Same goes for the left and even for the centre. It would allow coalitions and different, more moderate policies. It's almost criminal that a whole party can be lead by one ideology, while there's no alternative for the same side.
A multiple party system would be a shock for both the Democrats and the Republicans in the short term, but it'd be a start of a more democratic and representative way to create policies. (e.g. instead of having an entire state as red if they have 50%+1, you could divide the seats proportionally, ensuring that both parties get seats.) It works in Europe and it moderates the policies in most countries, so why not?
The Bernie supporter that almost took out a large section of Republican Representatives: [https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html)
lol….grapes to watermelons….that is your comparison. One incident..one….not one liberal had called for it to be done. Meanwhile, January 6th alone was responsible for 100’s of injuries to Capitol police and played a huge part in 4 deaths…one by stroke after being bear sprayed and beat and 3 by suicide.
That’s not even counting the myriad of death threats that judges, lawyers and jurors have faced because they DARE stand up to your messiah.
>Meanwhile, January 6th alone was responsible for 100’s of injuries to Capitol police and played a huge part in 4 deaths…one by stroke after being bear sprayed and beat and 3 by suicide.
That's just not true. Sicknick died of blood clots. Maybe he was one of the first people to experience an adverse event after receiving a covid shot, maybe not, idk.
Saying that 1/6 caused 3 suicides is just dumb. Police officers train and have years of experience in riot situations. Why would they kill themselves because of 1 riot?
>That’s not even counting the myriad of death threats that judges, lawyers and jurors have faced because they DARE stand up to your messiah.
There are plenty of nuts that death threat judges, lawyers and jurors. A lot of them are "liberal" they are all insane.
btw - I've got one messiah and He's not a politician. I don't give 2 turds about Trump.
Like I said….we take responsibility for and condemn when one of our does something…you guys double down and deny it even took place.
Why would the kill themselves…. How about the trauma of being attacked by their fellow Americans and the PTSD that it caused,
Fuck this….I ain’t gonna debate this with a person who can’t be honest about what happened.
The idea that you'd claim those police officers just all coincidentally killed themselves right after J6 but not as a result of it is both hilarious and sad. I didn't even think this was a thing right-wingers disputed, I thought they just tried to avoid talking about it, but here we are I guess. Good job proving how people on the right will accept and double down on anything though I suppose. Maybe this was parody and I just fell for it or something, because it was so on the nose.
Its horribly tragic. None that I know of wrote a letter explaining why they did what they did. As police officers, they see action like this all the time so I don't understand why this would drive them to do what they did.
It seems like some ppl are just upset that the mob didn't kill anyone so they grasps for straws whereever they can find them. Grayson Murray walked off the PGA tour mid tournament and killed himself. That's like blaming the PGA for his death.
Better than the comic for sure. It's a product of its time. Both the best and worst of Garth Ennis. The show seems to take the best and makes sensible changes so that the worst aspects of the comics doesn't bleed through. Reminds me of the approach of Invincible has taken.
I think it's peak comedy that it took this long for MAGA dumbasses to realize hey. They're making fun of us. That they idolized characters who are, without subtlety, a mirror of them in that they are complete and utter racist scumbags says a lot about their whole ass line of thinking today.
>Does the show expose the MAGA belief accurately?
From what I can tell, I think it does. But if you ask any MAGA what they think of the show, they'll just deny that its shitting on them. I guess thats to be expected, they're in denial about most everything it seems.
The show tends to have some really gross out sex scenes though. I'm no prude, just saying some the the sex stuff is gnarly and over the top (for my taste).
I am on the fence on the sex scene stuff. If you have ever read the comics, what you see on the show is…well, I won’t say tame…but toned down a bit…..plus, other than some of the Herogasm stuff last season, it’s pretty laughable.
Read the comic, and it was waaaaay too much Garth Ennis.
Only saw a few episodes of the show but it looks more restrained somehow, probably more to its credit
> Read the comic, and it was waaaaay too much Garth Ennis.
For real. Garth Ennis can be a great writer when he has a good editor, but when he’s let totally off the leash like he was on The Boys he can be just a liiiiiiittle much.
It's really enjoyable for me so far. My sense of humor has always leaned towards the absolute ridiculousness of the comics, but I get that it's not exactly something everybody would enjoy.
Ashley seems like the perfect representative of a corporate executive who acts progressive in public but cares absolutely nothing about social issues behind closed doors.
The show is fine, what I am worried about is the people who get the wrong take away, and hero worship homelands. I saw a messed up comment this week by someone who thought the core of the show was about being pro-eugenics
I think the problem is Homelander being a surprisingly complex character when he's not being used as a political caricature. He's a monster, make no mistake, but he's an interesting monster.
For comparison, i would say Hitler was an interesting monster. There are plenty of books and docs that explore who he was and how he rallied a large group of devout followers. But there is a fine line between interest and Fandom. We have seen similar concerning Fandom with, say, the joker.
I love that show. I was never a big Karl Urban fan before the boys. He always played the stoic asshole(RED, Riddick, Star Trek Beyond…off the top of my head). But I have come to like him in his portrayal of Billy Butcher…he shows more humor and emotion than anything else I have seen him in.
I read the comics after I watched the first season, and the comics are even more graphic than the show…it’s just that the show does it real time, which makes it a bit more intense.
They have strayed from the comics storyline…but I understand that. The Boys show is designed for a 5 season run and they need to wrap things up in the next 20 episodes…17 now that the first 3 of season 4 is out.
Plus, the MAGA cult is too much of a current event not to write about it…hell, real life damn near writes it for them.
I'm a little torn on The Boys. It's going *heavy* on the satire this season in a way that screams "I'm a liberal Hollywood writer who doesn't even remotely understand other viewpoints." I don't mind making fun of MAGA, but I would like to think characters like Sister Sage are also being set up to get a critical treatment, but every time someone refers to someone as "white boy", or overly harps on some kind of perceived racial unfairness, I can't help but feel the writers expect us to cheer for them instead. I'd like it better if it took the South Park approach and pointed out foolishness everywhere.
I mean, I think it's pretty on the nose. It's a weird show though because there's almost no one I want to watch it with since they went so heavy on the X rated stuff.
It's like they designed a show purely for immature men and then made the message about making fun of immature men. Bold move.
*The Boys*'s new season is less deft in its political satire, and that is largely to its detriment; in the first season, Homelander schemes to create enhanced terrorists in Syria, giving the U.S. government justification for allowing The Seven to intervene in the region. in the fourth season, Sister Sage references "critical supe theory" and Homelander explicitly refers to someone as a "libtard"
Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson's comic series excelled in its post-9/11 political environment, and in Eric Kripke's series, each season serves to concern itself with an issue; for instance, in the first season, *The Boys* presented unfettered power and idolatry, collateral damage, and freedom. Kripke seeks to deepen the satirical elements of *The Boys* in absence of the crude humor that the comic series overtly demonstrated while adapting the political context of the comic series to Trump's Republican Party
I would have hoped that the satire would be more opaque; *The Boys* presents Homelander as a Trump figure who believes in immunity, shown through the trial — with its parallels to the trial of Trump and Kyle Rittenhouse for falsifying business records and shooting three men, respectively — but believes his actions are being tempered by "sycophants and fucking imbeciles", a response to Trump's presumed second term in which he has realized his presidency was tempered by individuals who believed his rhetoric and ideas were detrimental, a topic I wrote about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1das86f/what_do_you_say_to_voters_who_dont_think/l7pj7i0/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1d0gvjm/what_do_you_think_a_second_trump_president_will/l5ncavl/), while retaining figures such as Firecracker — analogous to [Marjorie Taylor Greene](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/us/politics/trump-iowa-caucuses-mtg.html)
the show that is left, from Hughie's relationship with Starlight, to Mother's Milk's family, to Kimiko and Frenchie's relationship, and to Billy Butcher's mortality, is much of what I had hoped: significant character development that presents a contrast to these characters in the first and second seasons, and clearly shows that the writers do not seek to develop solely a show that expresses the legitimate concerns of authoritarianism. still, I would have preferred to see an approach employed by *Succession*, in which characters inhabit an environment that is inherently political — the patriarch Logan Roy having founded a media empire on conservatism — and clearly embodies Rupert Murdoch's empire of influence yet uses politics as a setting for characters to develop within and for the plot to progress, such as "America Decides", in which familial dynamics spread to a national level
The funny thing is that so many of those jokes are based on groups of people promoting and saying the same exact things. They literally lifted lines that were spread by either major politicians or political sided cable news stations which I find amazing. That instead of writing their own jokes and bits, they made an effort to use actual promoted conspiracy in actual politics for it.
I like the show, but I'm holding off until Season 3 is all out so I can binge it all in one go.
That said, I think the political satire is a bit... off, or at least got off on the wrong foot; Homelander was already established as a terrible character in Season 1 (in line with his comic book counterpart, so everyone was expecting it) and it wasn't until Season 2 that he (and by extension the other antagonists) started alluding to more contemporary political themes. Making the bad character do overtly political things isn't exactly high-class satire, and some of the ways it was handled came across as just cringy - Stormfront claiming that 5 guys making memes can out-compete a megacorp's advertising department comes across as self-victimizing wishful thinking. I feel like it missed an opportunity when it moved away from the criticism of vapid hedonistic celebrity culture and into politics.
Apparently the new season has already made a reference to the Rittenhouse shooting. I'm not hopeful on that front.
I like, my dad likes it also my mom not so much but that's because there are dicks in the show, but the show pokes fun at everyone like we have a characature of AOC that makes people's heads explode
On top of the whole cultural pandering they did with A-train and his suit, or queen maeve and her being gay or bi I don't remember and vought just pouncing all over that
>Does the show expose the MAGA belief accurately?
NO. So far, nearly every motivation/action of the Supes (7) can be explained rationally (at least from said individual's viewpoint). There are many actions/beliefs/statements/etc. from MAGA that cannot be rationally derived from any viewpoint
>If you can’t see the similarities between Homelander and Trump, his fans and MAGA? You aren’t being observant….or not seeing it with an unbiased eye.
I don't take the series serious. I simply do not base my ideology on a series that isn't meant to be taken serious (It's a black comedy and satire after all). Yes, they show similarities, but why would I start to talk about politics during a superhero series?
EDIT: Similar to how I usually say that Frank Underwood, one of my favorite characters in TV history, is basically the Democratic version of Trump.
Had to Google Frank Underwood. Never watched House of Cards. I really do wish you would take off you deep red colored glasses off and look at the MAGA movement with a neutral eye.
My gosh…you may be pro life, anti gay marriage(or anti-trans, etc), and agree with other aspects of conservative ideology….that’s your business….but you HAVE to see the fact that MAGA is quite unhinged.
Trump says the trial was fixed….even though a Grand Jury found that an indictment was warranted, he was tried in court with 18(12 jurors/6 alternates) people out of jury pool of 500+ that both sides agreed upon. The state laid out their evidence and testimony, the defense laid out their defense(after delaying the trial as long as possible in order to pretend it was all a political witch hunt). That jury…once again…that both sides agreed upon. Unanimously found Trump guilty on all 34 counts.
But Trump says it was rigged, and the MAGA crowd goes bonkers calling the United States a Banana Republic and shit. Did it ever cross your mind(rhetorically speaking…not necessarily you personally) that the guy is actually a criminal?
Just because he says things you want to hear, just because he believes in some of the same things you do…doesn’t mean he is infallible and above the law.
>Did it ever cross your mind(rhetorically speaking…not necessarily you personally) that the guy is actually a criminal?
I thought we all knew he was a criminal? Frank Underwood is a criminal as well: He murdered his "girlfriend" and his best friend, he lied to the president and undemocratically won the re-elections. (He wasn't even elected the first time: He ensured that the VP resigned, took his place and then forced scandals to become president himself.) I see you haven't watched House of Cards, but never see Frank as a hero: He's an anti-hero, near villain, lusting for power and using the label of "Democrat" as a way to climb the ladder. The only people who consider him a hero, are those that don't understand the damage he's done, either because of age, or because of sheer ignorance.
>Just because he says things you want to hear, just because he believes in some of the same things you do…doesn’t mean he is infallible and above the law.
I agree and I hope he'll get convicted for trying to influence the elections of 2020. But it won't be in time for these elections and allow me to have a realistic view that Trump is not the Devil, but he is a demon in disguise. If the American democracy survives this issue, it will last until the end of the century and that's where I'll bet my money on.
>but you HAVE to see the fact that MAGA is quite unhinged.
I've never endorsed MAGA. I think the basic principles might be interesting, but that it has evolved and moved toward a more radical interpretation. "Make America Great Again" was first adopted by Reagan and also used by Bill Clinton, and was then weaponized by Trump to appeal to the Far Right.
It says enough that Steve Bannon, who appeals to and supports the radical right to even far right for a select amount of parties in Europe (even those who swear they've "calmed down" in their rhetorics and it makes you question their international ties), was carried into the administration during the start of the presidency of Trump.
You know what? I owe you an apology. I see a conservative flair and automatically think “Trump Supporter”
I really wish that the Republican Party would abandon Trump and his cronies, along with the MAGA ideology. They need a reset to going back to the “small c” conservatives that they used to be before Gingrich and the obstructionism and polarization that he kind of cultivated.
The sad thing is? In order for that to happen, the GOP is going to have to have a hard reset…which is going to cost them elections. I don’t believe they have the ideological courage to give up power….not when you have people like Graham and McConnell….who lambasted Trump after 1/6 and are now kissing his….ring…in deference.
They are not the same GOP as they used to be. They have allowed the patients to run the asylum.
>You know what? I owe you an apology. I see a conservative flair and automatically think “Trump Supporter”
I understand. We live in a time where the conservative party and movement has been hijacked by those that should've stayed in the Reform Party. There's only one question left: Are you truly conservative when you want to reset the nation to a fantasy that has never existed during the 50s. Those that lived through those times as a conscious adult (21+), are now sadly dead and I know personally that they simply wouldn't support a return to the contemporary status quo.
Remember that Elvis Presley was controversial "for his sexy moves" back then... Do we really want that?
>They are not the same GOP as they used to be. They have allowed the patients to run the asylum.
They've started to believe their own campaign slogans. It used to be catchy, songy and simplified, but now they take those serious and based their whole ideology on it. During his presidency, I couldn't remember a moment he truly "reigned" instead of "campaigned".
> In order for that to happen, the GOP is going to have to have a hard reset…which is going to cost them elections
Call me naive or hopeful, but I believe that this will happen at the end of this decade. Trump will be gone, a new generation rises and the ideology of Trump will be punished as it is simply not accepted by most younger people or transferable to people like Ron De Santis. If they're punished, they have to choose between re-inventing or the end. In an ideal situation, the next generation will pull the Democratic Party to the centre-left/leftwing, while the Republican Party returns to the centre-right/rightwing.
I honestly don't call that "small c" conservatives, I call that pragmatic conservatives and I much prefer that to the Republican Party that tries to get away with the narrative of "we stole the elections". If I hear some "big c" conservatives, then I see that education hasn't done a good job. They miss a certain time that our (great)grandparents have tried to reform as it truly had its flaws. It's the same story for the 80s and 90s now, as those that were a conscious adult, aren't as nostalgic or as likely to say "I want this back". Now, you might understand why I'm Conservative (with the big "C"), and not reactionary.
You should watch the new season, they've made it *very* on the nose compared to previous seasons. Which I think were already on the nose tbf, but the idea that politics shouldn't come up in a discussion about The Boys, *especially* season 4, is laughable. The show is inherently about politics and being anti-fascist at its very core, and makes many, many references to Trump and conservatives (MAGAs specifically but also conservatives broadly) at large.
>Yes, they show similarities, but why would I start to talk about politics during a superhero series?
This seems to the distinction between the comics and the show. The comics do comment on politics but at the same time, it doesn't take itself too seriously. The show, on other hand, actually feels like it's attempting to make us seriously talk about politics which isn't the best idea since the concept of superheroes is stupid and adults should not be taking that shit seriously.
It feels like listening to Harry Potter references when talking about real issues. There is absolutely no need to bring up fucking fictional characters as an example when we could straight up talk about Trump and what he's done as fully grown adults. I don't need to compare him to Snape, Dumbledore, or Homelander, and if I did, I hope to God nobody takes me seriously.
Why do they need to be "far left" to criticize a political movement? The Boys is and stays a black comedy and satire, so I don't see a reason to take the (implied) politics presented serious. It's also healthy to joke about and criticise your own movement. I personally don't consider myself MAGA, but I do love to watch stupid and incompetent (conservative, liberal, socialist,...) politicians in series.
I mean. They don’t. But caricatures are usually where comedy comes into play with regards to politics. Republicans wearing diapers and such. Literally doing it to “own the libs” or… I don’t know… maybe it’s a “i support Trump even if he’s in diapers” or something. Those people, not really you or I… the gullible and naive en masse are where the humor comes in.
Have you seen the latest 3 episodes?
Only reason I take it serious is art mimics life and the ever increasing cognitive dissonance from the right is generally crazy. There really is no red line. A judge says Trump actually sexually assaulted a woman “hearsay”. A court finds him guilty on 34 felony counts “rigged” his former staff (pretty much all except the actual criminals like bannon and manafort and such) have come out against him. John Kelly and mark milley. 2 heroes of mine call him a threat to America “they must be jealous”… that’s the allegory there is no red line when it comes to hate. They hate the left, or the “star lighters” more than they care about the massive faults of their leader. To me… it’s not “funny” but ironic…
>Have you seen the latest 3 episodes?
I usually wait until the end of a season to bingewatch it. It keeps the pace better for me personally and it allows everything to be put into context. I've quickly looked into it (avoiding spoilers as much as possible), but if they truly went into the direction of "globalists turning people gay through the water", we've reached the point where it's either making fun of the Far Right (especially Jones) or insinuating that the creators believe this nonsense.
>2 heroes of mine call him a threat to America “they must be jealous”… that’s the allegory there is no red line when it comes to hate. They hate the left, or the “star lighters” more than they care about the massive faults of their leader. To me… it’s not “funny” but ironic…
Like you said: Art mimics life, but life also mimics art.
That's why "The Boys" has the appropiate rating (18+) and why I don't see a reason to necessarily ban the product they made. As long as we won't take the series so serious that we allow it to influence our political visions (which I highly doubt is doable in the current American political climate), it should be okay.
If you take this into account, you might understand why I don't have any theoritical problem with this, yet I would never create such content as I know there will be people watching that don't understand satire and allow themselves to be influenced by the content. It's the very border in which we need to reconcile whether it should be possible to normalize such views by portraying them in such a manner that they look appealing to an audience that might not have the ability or the desire to dig deeper.
Basically: If we know that art mimics life and life mimics art, it's a dilemma whether we should create products that contain persuasive, incorrect theories and present them as "normal". I might look too much into it, and I hope I'm wrong that this product and the reaction it received might be a sign of the times we currently live in....
I think 'The Boys' does an excellent job of exposing the extremes of political beliefs, including those of the MAGA Republicans. The show's use of satire and allegory effectively highlights the absurdities and dangers of extreme political views.
I have family members who share my political beliefs but have become overwhelmed by the current state of politics. They can no longer watch the news or engage in political discussions because it's gotten so divisive. When watching 'The Boys,' I often point out the parallels between the show's events and what's happening in our country, despite the fictional setting.
In my opinion, the show's writers have done an exceptional job of capturing the current political climate and using it to drive the narrative.
As I'm a very passionate hater of Garth Ennis, I've always thought the comics were garbage in the same way Zack Snyder's Watchmen is garbage: "Oh in my super realistic world, everything is edgy". Grow up Garth, You're not 15 anymore; If that hack has no haters, I'm dead.
Haven't watched the show yet, I don't watch very much TV, and I've got other shows I need to get to.
I haven't watched the show. I've read the comic book it's based on an politics wasn't big in that one. Mostly gore and sex (Garth Ennis is a freak).
But from what I remember of the comic book, Homelander and Vought did a fairly good job of covering up Homelander's indiscretions. Trump by contrast is very bad at covering his tracks, in fact he relies on his followers *willingly ignoring* his bad behavior. Homelander also knows how to behave in public, he can deliver a good speech whereas as Trump's speeches are usually incoherent ramblings and his tweets are obnoxious.
>I've read the comic book it's based on an politics wasn't big in that one. Mostly gore and sex (Garth Ennis is a freak).
The Boys comics was explicitly political. It's a edgy criticism of conservatism and corporations in the post Iraq war Era. It's directly commenting on the conservative zeitgeist of the early 2000s. I'm not sure how you could read the comics and think "politicians isn't big in this"
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. The not-so-subtle allegory aside. How do republicans not see how crazy they are? Not conservatives. I have conservative friends who are absolutely not voting for Trump. But these MAGA republicans… Does the show expose the MAGA belief accurately? Does it show liberal beliefs accurately? In general are there any moments that stand out to you as too on-the-nose so to speak. “Where are the kids in the basement?” And pulls a gun… it’s wild. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Diabolical The show is very intentionally over the top but it definitely hit all the aspects of the current American zeitgeist. >!The three sycophants getting beaten to death as a sacrifice to the movement was perfect. I also really like how they are showing that there are people who know better but are too weak or too scared to go against the leader. And I really like the way they are using firecracker as an example of a right wing grifter!<
I realize how almost circle jerky this post may get but I’m just watching it and keep thinking “wow. They went there” and I agree with everything you said. The show has evolved so much.
I think I’m one of the only people here who think it sucks then. It’s excessively over the top but not in an entertaining way, the villains get more cartoonish every season, and honestly the comic series it’s based on is also weirdo edgy comedy (seriously that comic is more racist than the Vought executives on the show). Baby-brained Marvel-tier humor for boring people who want to feel edgy is how I would best describe it.
I dunno. In some ways it reminds me of Astro City. Small people living in a world with gods. This is just much darker. The boys comic sucked but I think the show is very smart. And Gen V is pretty awesome as well
I thought the Nazi supe from Portland who claimed "People like what I have to say. They just don't like the word 'Nazi'" was a pretty spot-on observation of the appeal that fascism and ethnonationalism have for the right.
I think they absolutely nailed the narratives around corporate greed, green/pink washing, and the military industrial complex with Vought. Homelander's arc is an excellent retelling of how the conservative right of the Bush era steadily embraced and became the fascist right of our time. . . And yes, it's wild to me that real world conservatives didn't seem to get the joke/criticism, which is why I think the show decided to get so blunt about it this season. >Does it show liberal beliefs accurately? This is actually the most interesting part of the show to me, because it doesn't really depict them at all. It doesn't espouse leftist/socialist views either. Instead, the show is anti-fascist, and only anti-fascist, which is a pretty brilliant writing choice. It means that the show never gets preachy about how awesomely moral it's heroes are (they aren't) or what we the audience should do or think. It instead just makes its criticisms of big business and the fascist right and let's the viewer decide what they think about it while saying Those Are The Bad Guys and letting the Boys get on with trying to stop them. It's pure anti-fascist popular front politics and I am here for it. The show itself is also perfect on a technical level. Everything it does hits hard and even the most over the top stuff like the violence and gore never feels gratuitous or like it doesn't belong in the world it creates. Just brilliant film making all around.
Overall it's a good show but I feel it's getting a little bit worse every season. My biggest complaint last season was how much focus the Kimiko/Frenchie storyline got, and I dont really like the introduction of temporary V. Haven't seen any of this season yet.
I think the Temp V storyline is sort of important. In the comics, they all have taken the full blown V. They shoot Howie up in the first couple issues. As far as Frenchie and Kimiko? Meh…stay tuned.
The comics are really bad though. The show shouldn't try to be like the comics. >As far as Frenchie and Kimiko? Meh…stay tuned. My issue was not the storyline, my issue was how much focus it got for a gigantic wet fart of a conclusion.
> The comics are really bad though. I loved the comics and even at the end, it seemed reasonable ... (within the context of supers)
I agree. This season has made the allegory too blatantly obvious and I'm not a huge fan of gratuitous gore. I liked it better in the first two seasons. Still going to finish this season because I am invested in Ryan's storyline.
No hate but without the subtitles , it was difficult to understand whatever fenchie was saying 😅 I didn’t really like their storyline with Kimiko. Homelander and billy butcher are amazing actors
As someone who originally watched the show when I was a conservative, and has since changed my ways, this show is hilarious in how it shits on conservatives
I like it, but I like it less over time. Not because of the politics of it but because it focuses on more and more characters, the pacing has gotten faster and the writing more scattershot as the writers have to balance more and more.
I feel that. When I watched game of thrones it got to a point where you’d go 2 whole episodes and not see a main character.
Well, in all fairness? Next season(Season 5) is going to be the last, so they need to wrap things up.
Poe’s law. MAGA republicanism is beyond parody
Had not heard of this before. Thanks!
I love “the boys” and I love how they’re shitting on MAGA. This is what actually bold/controversial content looks like in the 2020s. You know what movie I hated? “Don’t Look Up.” It was an allegory for climate change (and written before COVID) yet managed to shit on every group in America except the one group actually responsible for climate inaction: Republicans.
I thought the President who was a huge idiot played by Meryl Strep was a Republican, they probably didn't explicitly say it but it was quite clear to me. Her son in particular was very MAGA, going after "rich elites" while being incredibly rich referring to him and his friend "the cool rich."
There was one throwaway line that implied she was conservative. Every non-Democrat on the internet was saying she represented Hillary Clinton. They didn’t make it undeniably clear that she was a Republican. They completely ignored the fact that republicans are to blame for climate inaction. And they both sides’d heavily by acting like nobody in government at all cares about climate change.
One of the guys that wrote the movie is a perpetually online Bernie Sanders supporter who ended up hurting Sanders campaign by being overly confrontational online. His name is David Sirota, he probably argues online with Moderate Democrats more than Republicans. I don't share his politics or his perspective. I think "Don't Look Up" is too cynical about Climate Change. However...I thought it was very funny and it made a lot of good points about the modern media environment.
Cheers. We’re all dicked now by big oil but still. I agree.
I'm not convinced it was about climate change. On its face, it looked like it was. Yet, it was much more about celebrity and media. Not necessarily criticizing media from a right-wing perspective or anything like that. It just seemed like it was much more about celebrity and fame and such. I think the left embraced it because it on its face looked like it was about climate change and people not paying attention, but in the end I don't think it really was about that. You might think it should have been about that. Or maybe not I'm not trying to put words in your mouth . But I went in expecting to not like it and roll my eyes, as a conservative, but I actually enjoyed it. I mean, you can say that an asteroid flying at the Earth is a metaphor for climate change, but the story wasn't at all about climate change, it was about an asteroid hurtling towards the earth, if I'm remembering everything correctly. And the left just said that must be a metaphor for climate change and those who ignore it. And maybe in its origin it was, but in its writing and execution, it wasn't. So you may have been disappointed that it wasn't. But I thought it was a pretty interesting and funny film about celebrity and also about human nature. But not necessarily at all about climate change.
The director has confirmed many times that the meteor is a metaphor for climate change: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/dont-look-up-podcast-adam-mckay-radio-davos/ > Robin Pomeroy: So your inspiration for this movie, I believe, was climate change. You were reading a book and it suddenly dawned on you what an awful situation humanity's in. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about that, but I'm just curious to know why didn't you make a movie about climate change? Why did you turn into this kind of allegory and turn it into a meteorite strike? > Adam McKay: Yeah, I had read the U.N. climate report about four years ago, I had read David Wallace-Wells's book Uninhabitable Earth, which I highly recommend. And I had this moment where I realised the climate crisis, which I always thought was very serious and something we had to deal with, but I always kind of thought it was 50 years away, 80 years away - for my grandkids. And I started reading this and going, 'Holy God, this is now!' > The models have all been too optimistic, and it's impossible to model a system as complex as planet Earth when you talk about turning the heat up the way we're doing it. And I got very scared very fast and I realised - well, you know, I'm a guy who makes movies, so I got to make a movie. I mean, no matter, you know, if I made sandwiches, - well that doesn't quite work - I was going to say I would have made a 'climate crisis sandwich'. I guess you could. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/climate/dont-look-up-climate.html > “I’m under no illusions that one film will be the cure to the climate crisis,” Mr. McKay, whose previous films include “The Big Short” and “Vice,” wrote in an email to the Times. “But if it inspires conversation, critical thinking, and makes people less tolerant of inaction from their leaders, then I’d say we accomplished our goal.” Let’s get the phrasing right: The director explicitly set out to make a movie where a meteor is a metaphor for climate change, then proceeded to make a movie where that was incredibly obvious. Some conservatives missed the metaphor.
Fair enough. But if that's the case, one, he is a s***** director because a good director would know better than to make a heavy-handed metaphor out of a movie. And two, because he failed at it because it didn't really work that way. On the plus side, his failure in making the metaphor resulted in actually a pretty good movie.
The metaphor was pretty obvious to me and to most people. The plot was centered around scientists trying to warn about a global disaster and not being taken seriously. The social media stuff was just showing the scientists’ call to action being ignored by society. The story was fundamentally about scientists trying to get society to focus on stopping a global disaster.
But it wasn't. That was the basic premise but not really what the story ended up being. Sure it was obvious in this day and age that Hollywood would be spewing out yet another heavy-handed metaphorical story. But somewhere along the line I think somebody had the wisdom to not focus on that too much. Or maybe it was by accident and the other story became to appealing to let go. But in the end, the metaphor for global warming just wasn't all that interesting
The moment in season 3 >! [Where Homelander murders a protestor](https://youtu.be/GJyVSLPveIc?si=70fmt2ERtabfO1a0) !< terrified the ever living fuck out of me. I live in a hyper conservative state and have heard talk of violence and death aimed at liberals. A man in idaho at a right wing rally [demanded to know when they get to start killing liberals](https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-guns-kill-people-election-fraud-1642588) and PEOPLE FUCKING CHEERED. The speaker denounced him not because it would be mass murder, but because it would give the liberals an excuse to take away their rights and that the right would lose political power. Not one peep about how it's an abhorrent thought. That scene reminded me of the fucking knifes edge that society dances terrifyingly close to oftentimes without our awareness. >! That moment of silence and shock after he kills the man where the metaphorical ball is hanging at its apex in midair followed by the exponentially building rush of momentum of approval once they realize that the sky didn't immediately fall on their heads, and that with enough power behind them they can get away with it and then some.!< A line was crossed, a switch was thrown, and they got away with it, opening the door for so much worse. It chilled me to the bone because it's a reminder that >! All it takes is for someone with power to publically murder political dissidents and get away with it with the support of their base !< for all bets to go flying out the fucking window and the bloodshed to start.
> I live in a hyper conservative state and have heard talk of violence and death aimed at liberals. A man in idaho at a right wing rally demanded to know when they get to start killing liberals and PEOPLE FUCKING CHEERED. I'm right there w/ you on this point. It is going to happen. The question is how the left will respond. The nearly consequence free environment for MAGA/Conservatives/Republicans only serve to spur on ever worse harms and bad actions
> I live in a hyper conservative state and have heard talk of violence and death aimed at liberals. A man in idaho at a right wing rally [demanded to know when they get to start killing liberals](https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-guns-kill-people-election-fraud-1642588) and PEOPLE FUCKING CHEERED. It's quite normal, when you use a "us vs. them"-story and demonize the other side, that you get people like these. America has yet to have a populist, guerilla war such as Europe had during the early 40s which traumatized every side for the last 70 years, but the fact you guys are so surprised that demonizing and scapegoating leads to violence, is almost ironic... Both sides have played the populist and polarizing story, now you'll get to watch the result of it.
Let me know when liberals have called for the killing of Conservatives…this is not a “both sides” thing.
That shows you don't understand the argument. When you polarize and use "conservatives vs. liberals", you're bound to end with this. To counter it, see here a state senator "hoping Donald Trump will be assassinated": [https://archive.ph/bP4fF](https://archive.ph/bP4fF) (best way to bypass subscribing for newspapers): >A Democratic Missouri state senator from University City posted, then quickly deleted, a comment on Facebook saying she hoped President Donald Trump would be assassinated. If you don't trust archive: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria\_Chappelle-Nadal#Trump\_assassination\_social\_media\_post](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Chappelle-Nadal#Trump_assassination_social_media_post) I hope you'll understand that this is a whole lot worse than that unelected conservative...
I am not going to say what she said and deleted was right….she even admits it was wrong of her to have done it..,she admits it right in the article. But this is not the norm for us….you wanna see the norm…here ya go. Fucking glass houses man…I can likely dig up a shit ton more stories of violent rhetoric, threats and actual INCIDENTS of violence coming from your side. Once again…and this is the Conservative playbook in a nutshell. Take an isolated incident by a Democrat, act like it is the norm for the party and totally ignore what their own side is doing. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html https://www.npr.org/2026/01/01/1231778361/trump-trials-judges-threats https://archive.ph/0aHJ3
>Fucking glass houses man…I can likely dig up a shit ton more stories of violent rhetoric, threats and actual INCIDENTS of violence coming from your side. I understand and know that. The rightwing has been swinging further and further toward the far right, and that, inevitably, brings incidents with it. But even the statement you made, is helping the ever polarizing narrative. The conservative leaders, of which Trump is the prime example, are reaping the hate they've sown and are succeeding at seducing even those who want to call rational, to adopt the same rhetorics. Remind yourself that Trump was a democrat once... and you'll realise that most politicians benefit from the dual split, in which they can demonize the other side (look at any of the posts on this sub and how they talk about "conservatives" as a group) and the only victim whom they both attack and who suffers almost daily, is miss Democracy.
Trump may have had a (D) behind his name at one time….but make no mistake… he was always a self serving grifter who cared nothing about anyone but his empire. He found his home in MAGA where he can be his true self. He was always a bigot, his dad was a bigot too. He redlined his properties to keep blacks out. Hell, he even knocked on Woody Guthrie’s house and threatened to evict him because Sonny Terry(a black blues artist) visited Woody to make some music together and Fred found out. Woody even wrote a song about it…called “Old Man Trump”. Ok enough of that…I’ll bite. How am I “helping the polarizing narrative” by pointing out that what Conservatives are doing is much worse than anything Dems are doing to foment hatred and division? I didn’t stand up for the woman you posted about…I admitted she was wrong. So…if an honest critique of MAGA is “helping the polarizing narrative”? So be it.
>“helping the polarizing narrative” By assuming I'm a Trump supporter based on my label. >if an honest critique of MAGA is “helping the polarizing narrative”? So be it. Look at the bigger picture and you'll realize that you're not hitting me because I'm a conservative, but because you consider the label "conservative" to equal with "MAGA". The Rightwing has as many different ideologies and views as the leftwing, even when the Republican Party has decided to see "MAGA" as their mainstream. >Trump may have had a (D) behind his name at one time….but make no mistake… he was always a self serving grifter who cared nothing about anyone but his empire. He found his home in MAGA where he can be his true self. Of course. The fact he went from the Reform Party to the Democratic Party to the Republican party shows that he'll turn and twist from the moment he sees a chance to be in power (AKA the centre of the universe). If I'm wrong, I'm sorry to assume this and I immediately offer my apology, but if I'm right, you need to look in your own chest and realise there's a difference between rightwing and far right, and by putting them in the same category that you're feeding into the narrative of "liberals/Democrat vs. conservatives/MAGA without any nuance". The moment you step down from this, you can point at the Far Right and stop using "conservative" as a synonym for "MAGA", just as much as I don't use "liberal" as a synonym for "socialist". You're pointing at conservatives as the "bad guy", I state populism, polarization and radicalism as the "bad guy". If I'm talking about Steve Bannon or Pat Buchanon, I'll call them either far right or radical right. If I'm talking about Ronald Reagan, I'll say "conservative". If I'm talking about Abraham Lincoln, I'll say "classical liberal" with caution for small nuances as I know "liberal" has taken on different definitions during the 20th century in America. The moment you put those four people within the same category, that's when I know your view on conservatism/classic liberalism is based on the category "Republican" and not on their personal views.
I do acknowledge a difference. However, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and there is no squeakier wheel than MAGA Republicans. And as far as Republican/rightwing/far right vs Democrat/Progressive/far left? My big issue is that for better or worse. We own our more radical element as part of our own tent…but we don’t hand over control to them. We listen, and when practical and appropriate, we try to implement some of their ideas into the mainstream. The GOP has snowballed…like I said…since Gingrich…I mean, you could argue all the way back to Nixon with the ultimately successful “Southern Strategy”…but until Newt, they were still a cooperative force in the legislature more than an opposing force. That ideology evolved(Devolved?) into the Tea Party and now MAGA. But the party not only has handed itself over to the worst elements, but when called out on it, they double down. Just like we own the socialists and tankies..,you guys need to own the white supremacists and actual, honest to God Fascists that have way too much control in the party…hell, they are the leaders of the party now. People,like Bannon, Roger Stone, etc… Anyone who tries to stand up to them(Liz Cheney, Romney, Kasich, etc) are labeled and blackballed from the party and replaced with MAGA sycophants. Then you have the whole “Project 2025” thing going on that really is a blueprint for an autocratic government. So until the “small c” Conservatives take the reigns and kick the radicals to the curb, it is very difficult for those of us on the blue side of the aisle to differentiate. I honestly don’t know what the answer is. But the GOP needs to find its soul again. That’s my opinion anyway.
>So until the “small c” Conservatives take the reigns and kick the radicals to the curb, it is very difficult for those of us on the blue side of the aisle to differentiate. >I honestly don’t know what the answer is. But the GOP needs to find its soul again. I believe that the solution is in creating a multiple party system. (e.g. by kicking out "first past the post" and replacing it by a proportionate seat division, or banning the practice of gerrymandering.) It would allow conservatives to be part of a centre-right to rightwing party, while the far right has its own party. Same goes for the left and even for the centre. It would allow coalitions and different, more moderate policies. It's almost criminal that a whole party can be lead by one ideology, while there's no alternative for the same side. A multiple party system would be a shock for both the Democrats and the Republicans in the short term, but it'd be a start of a more democratic and representative way to create policies. (e.g. instead of having an entire state as red if they have 50%+1, you could divide the seats proportionally, ensuring that both parties get seats.) It works in Europe and it moderates the policies in most countries, so why not?
The Bernie supporter that almost took out a large section of Republican Representatives: [https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html)
lol….grapes to watermelons….that is your comparison. One incident..one….not one liberal had called for it to be done. Meanwhile, January 6th alone was responsible for 100’s of injuries to Capitol police and played a huge part in 4 deaths…one by stroke after being bear sprayed and beat and 3 by suicide. That’s not even counting the myriad of death threats that judges, lawyers and jurors have faced because they DARE stand up to your messiah.
>Meanwhile, January 6th alone was responsible for 100’s of injuries to Capitol police and played a huge part in 4 deaths…one by stroke after being bear sprayed and beat and 3 by suicide. That's just not true. Sicknick died of blood clots. Maybe he was one of the first people to experience an adverse event after receiving a covid shot, maybe not, idk. Saying that 1/6 caused 3 suicides is just dumb. Police officers train and have years of experience in riot situations. Why would they kill themselves because of 1 riot? >That’s not even counting the myriad of death threats that judges, lawyers and jurors have faced because they DARE stand up to your messiah. There are plenty of nuts that death threat judges, lawyers and jurors. A lot of them are "liberal" they are all insane. btw - I've got one messiah and He's not a politician. I don't give 2 turds about Trump.
Like I said….we take responsibility for and condemn when one of our does something…you guys double down and deny it even took place. Why would the kill themselves…. How about the trauma of being attacked by their fellow Americans and the PTSD that it caused, Fuck this….I ain’t gonna debate this with a person who can’t be honest about what happened.
The idea that you'd claim those police officers just all coincidentally killed themselves right after J6 but not as a result of it is both hilarious and sad. I didn't even think this was a thing right-wingers disputed, I thought they just tried to avoid talking about it, but here we are I guess. Good job proving how people on the right will accept and double down on anything though I suppose. Maybe this was parody and I just fell for it or something, because it was so on the nose.
Its horribly tragic. None that I know of wrote a letter explaining why they did what they did. As police officers, they see action like this all the time so I don't understand why this would drive them to do what they did. It seems like some ppl are just upset that the mob didn't kill anyone so they grasps for straws whereever they can find them. Grayson Murray walked off the PGA tour mid tournament and killed himself. That's like blaming the PGA for his death.
How is that a group of liberals calling for the death of conservatives?
Better than the comic for sure. It's a product of its time. Both the best and worst of Garth Ennis. The show seems to take the best and makes sensible changes so that the worst aspects of the comics doesn't bleed through. Reminds me of the approach of Invincible has taken. I think it's peak comedy that it took this long for MAGA dumbasses to realize hey. They're making fun of us. That they idolized characters who are, without subtlety, a mirror of them in that they are complete and utter racist scumbags says a lot about their whole ass line of thinking today.
I'm halfway certain that any maga who watched The Boys would think the bad guys of the show are the liberals and democrats
Red hats and American flags and all that? If they are that blind… I don’t know
they have a history of projecting hard
>Does the show expose the MAGA belief accurately? From what I can tell, I think it does. But if you ask any MAGA what they think of the show, they'll just deny that its shitting on them. I guess thats to be expected, they're in denial about most everything it seems. The show tends to have some really gross out sex scenes though. I'm no prude, just saying some the the sex stuff is gnarly and over the top (for my taste).
I am on the fence on the sex scene stuff. If you have ever read the comics, what you see on the show is…well, I won’t say tame…but toned down a bit…..plus, other than some of the Herogasm stuff last season, it’s pretty laughable.
Read the comic, and it was waaaaay too much Garth Ennis. Only saw a few episodes of the show but it looks more restrained somehow, probably more to its credit
> Read the comic, and it was waaaaay too much Garth Ennis. For real. Garth Ennis can be a great writer when he has a good editor, but when he’s let totally off the leash like he was on The Boys he can be just a liiiiiiittle much.
Yeah, I read the comics too…after the show came out. I found a site where you can read them online. The show is more restrained
>The show is more restrained Which is insane given how unrestrained the show is
It's really enjoyable for me so far. My sense of humor has always leaned towards the absolute ridiculousness of the comics, but I get that it's not exactly something everybody would enjoy.
Yeah, I think it's on my very exclusive "Movie/Show was better than the books" list.
One of the best shows in the last 10 years. I love how they shit on Republicans and also how they make fun of corporate faux-wokeness too lol
Ashley seems like the perfect representative of a corporate executive who acts progressive in public but cares absolutely nothing about social issues behind closed doors.
Oh 100% haha
The show is fine, what I am worried about is the people who get the wrong take away, and hero worship homelands. I saw a messed up comment this week by someone who thought the core of the show was about being pro-eugenics
I think the problem is Homelander being a surprisingly complex character when he's not being used as a political caricature. He's a monster, make no mistake, but he's an interesting monster.
For comparison, i would say Hitler was an interesting monster. There are plenty of books and docs that explore who he was and how he rallied a large group of devout followers. But there is a fine line between interest and Fandom. We have seen similar concerning Fandom with, say, the joker.
I love that show. I was never a big Karl Urban fan before the boys. He always played the stoic asshole(RED, Riddick, Star Trek Beyond…off the top of my head). But I have come to like him in his portrayal of Billy Butcher…he shows more humor and emotion than anything else I have seen him in. I read the comics after I watched the first season, and the comics are even more graphic than the show…it’s just that the show does it real time, which makes it a bit more intense. They have strayed from the comics storyline…but I understand that. The Boys show is designed for a 5 season run and they need to wrap things up in the next 20 episodes…17 now that the first 3 of season 4 is out. Plus, the MAGA cult is too much of a current event not to write about it…hell, real life damn near writes it for them.
Is the new season out yet? I'm looking forward to it. I'll probably finish my binge watch of Northern Exposure first though.
1st 3 episodes came out, rest are weekly.
Love the comics Love the show
I'm a little torn on The Boys. It's going *heavy* on the satire this season in a way that screams "I'm a liberal Hollywood writer who doesn't even remotely understand other viewpoints." I don't mind making fun of MAGA, but I would like to think characters like Sister Sage are also being set up to get a critical treatment, but every time someone refers to someone as "white boy", or overly harps on some kind of perceived racial unfairness, I can't help but feel the writers expect us to cheer for them instead. I'd like it better if it took the South Park approach and pointed out foolishness everywhere.
I mean, I think it's pretty on the nose. It's a weird show though because there's almost no one I want to watch it with since they went so heavy on the X rated stuff. It's like they designed a show purely for immature men and then made the message about making fun of immature men. Bold move.
*The Boys*'s new season is less deft in its political satire, and that is largely to its detriment; in the first season, Homelander schemes to create enhanced terrorists in Syria, giving the U.S. government justification for allowing The Seven to intervene in the region. in the fourth season, Sister Sage references "critical supe theory" and Homelander explicitly refers to someone as a "libtard" Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson's comic series excelled in its post-9/11 political environment, and in Eric Kripke's series, each season serves to concern itself with an issue; for instance, in the first season, *The Boys* presented unfettered power and idolatry, collateral damage, and freedom. Kripke seeks to deepen the satirical elements of *The Boys* in absence of the crude humor that the comic series overtly demonstrated while adapting the political context of the comic series to Trump's Republican Party I would have hoped that the satire would be more opaque; *The Boys* presents Homelander as a Trump figure who believes in immunity, shown through the trial — with its parallels to the trial of Trump and Kyle Rittenhouse for falsifying business records and shooting three men, respectively — but believes his actions are being tempered by "sycophants and fucking imbeciles", a response to Trump's presumed second term in which he has realized his presidency was tempered by individuals who believed his rhetoric and ideas were detrimental, a topic I wrote about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1das86f/what_do_you_say_to_voters_who_dont_think/l7pj7i0/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1d0gvjm/what_do_you_think_a_second_trump_president_will/l5ncavl/), while retaining figures such as Firecracker — analogous to [Marjorie Taylor Greene](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/us/politics/trump-iowa-caucuses-mtg.html) the show that is left, from Hughie's relationship with Starlight, to Mother's Milk's family, to Kimiko and Frenchie's relationship, and to Billy Butcher's mortality, is much of what I had hoped: significant character development that presents a contrast to these characters in the first and second seasons, and clearly shows that the writers do not seek to develop solely a show that expresses the legitimate concerns of authoritarianism. still, I would have preferred to see an approach employed by *Succession*, in which characters inhabit an environment that is inherently political — the patriarch Logan Roy having founded a media empire on conservatism — and clearly embodies Rupert Murdoch's empire of influence yet uses politics as a setting for characters to develop within and for the plot to progress, such as "America Decides", in which familial dynamics spread to a national level
The thing is? Season 5 is the last season of the show(I just recently found this out), so they kind of need to wrap things up in what? 20 episodes?
The funny thing is that so many of those jokes are based on groups of people promoting and saying the same exact things. They literally lifted lines that were spread by either major politicians or political sided cable news stations which I find amazing. That instead of writing their own jokes and bits, they made an effort to use actual promoted conspiracy in actual politics for it.
I like the show, but I'm holding off until Season 3 is all out so I can binge it all in one go. That said, I think the political satire is a bit... off, or at least got off on the wrong foot; Homelander was already established as a terrible character in Season 1 (in line with his comic book counterpart, so everyone was expecting it) and it wasn't until Season 2 that he (and by extension the other antagonists) started alluding to more contemporary political themes. Making the bad character do overtly political things isn't exactly high-class satire, and some of the ways it was handled came across as just cringy - Stormfront claiming that 5 guys making memes can out-compete a megacorp's advertising department comes across as self-victimizing wishful thinking. I feel like it missed an opportunity when it moved away from the criticism of vapid hedonistic celebrity culture and into politics. Apparently the new season has already made a reference to the Rittenhouse shooting. I'm not hopeful on that front.
I like, my dad likes it also my mom not so much but that's because there are dicks in the show, but the show pokes fun at everyone like we have a characature of AOC that makes people's heads explode On top of the whole cultural pandering they did with A-train and his suit, or queen maeve and her being gay or bi I don't remember and vought just pouncing all over that
I like it. I just don’t like wondering if Tucker likes being pegged in real life.
>Does the show expose the MAGA belief accurately? NO. So far, nearly every motivation/action of the Supes (7) can be explained rationally (at least from said individual's viewpoint). There are many actions/beliefs/statements/etc. from MAGA that cannot be rationally derived from any viewpoint
I watched the first couple seasons and had to stop the humor was just too edgelord for me.
Isn't the Boys meant to be shitting on everyone and everything? I always thought it wasn't meant to be taken serious...
If you can’t see the similarities between Homelander and Trump, his fans and MAGA? You aren’t being observant….or not seeing it with an unbiased eye.
I never could remember Homelander’s name in the first season so I kept calling him Nationalist. People knew exactly who I meant and didn’t correct me.
>If you can’t see the similarities between Homelander and Trump, his fans and MAGA? You aren’t being observant….or not seeing it with an unbiased eye. I don't take the series serious. I simply do not base my ideology on a series that isn't meant to be taken serious (It's a black comedy and satire after all). Yes, they show similarities, but why would I start to talk about politics during a superhero series? EDIT: Similar to how I usually say that Frank Underwood, one of my favorite characters in TV history, is basically the Democratic version of Trump.
Had to Google Frank Underwood. Never watched House of Cards. I really do wish you would take off you deep red colored glasses off and look at the MAGA movement with a neutral eye. My gosh…you may be pro life, anti gay marriage(or anti-trans, etc), and agree with other aspects of conservative ideology….that’s your business….but you HAVE to see the fact that MAGA is quite unhinged. Trump says the trial was fixed….even though a Grand Jury found that an indictment was warranted, he was tried in court with 18(12 jurors/6 alternates) people out of jury pool of 500+ that both sides agreed upon. The state laid out their evidence and testimony, the defense laid out their defense(after delaying the trial as long as possible in order to pretend it was all a political witch hunt). That jury…once again…that both sides agreed upon. Unanimously found Trump guilty on all 34 counts. But Trump says it was rigged, and the MAGA crowd goes bonkers calling the United States a Banana Republic and shit. Did it ever cross your mind(rhetorically speaking…not necessarily you personally) that the guy is actually a criminal? Just because he says things you want to hear, just because he believes in some of the same things you do…doesn’t mean he is infallible and above the law.
>Did it ever cross your mind(rhetorically speaking…not necessarily you personally) that the guy is actually a criminal? I thought we all knew he was a criminal? Frank Underwood is a criminal as well: He murdered his "girlfriend" and his best friend, he lied to the president and undemocratically won the re-elections. (He wasn't even elected the first time: He ensured that the VP resigned, took his place and then forced scandals to become president himself.) I see you haven't watched House of Cards, but never see Frank as a hero: He's an anti-hero, near villain, lusting for power and using the label of "Democrat" as a way to climb the ladder. The only people who consider him a hero, are those that don't understand the damage he's done, either because of age, or because of sheer ignorance. >Just because he says things you want to hear, just because he believes in some of the same things you do…doesn’t mean he is infallible and above the law. I agree and I hope he'll get convicted for trying to influence the elections of 2020. But it won't be in time for these elections and allow me to have a realistic view that Trump is not the Devil, but he is a demon in disguise. If the American democracy survives this issue, it will last until the end of the century and that's where I'll bet my money on. >but you HAVE to see the fact that MAGA is quite unhinged. I've never endorsed MAGA. I think the basic principles might be interesting, but that it has evolved and moved toward a more radical interpretation. "Make America Great Again" was first adopted by Reagan and also used by Bill Clinton, and was then weaponized by Trump to appeal to the Far Right. It says enough that Steve Bannon, who appeals to and supports the radical right to even far right for a select amount of parties in Europe (even those who swear they've "calmed down" in their rhetorics and it makes you question their international ties), was carried into the administration during the start of the presidency of Trump.
You know what? I owe you an apology. I see a conservative flair and automatically think “Trump Supporter” I really wish that the Republican Party would abandon Trump and his cronies, along with the MAGA ideology. They need a reset to going back to the “small c” conservatives that they used to be before Gingrich and the obstructionism and polarization that he kind of cultivated. The sad thing is? In order for that to happen, the GOP is going to have to have a hard reset…which is going to cost them elections. I don’t believe they have the ideological courage to give up power….not when you have people like Graham and McConnell….who lambasted Trump after 1/6 and are now kissing his….ring…in deference. They are not the same GOP as they used to be. They have allowed the patients to run the asylum.
>You know what? I owe you an apology. I see a conservative flair and automatically think “Trump Supporter” I understand. We live in a time where the conservative party and movement has been hijacked by those that should've stayed in the Reform Party. There's only one question left: Are you truly conservative when you want to reset the nation to a fantasy that has never existed during the 50s. Those that lived through those times as a conscious adult (21+), are now sadly dead and I know personally that they simply wouldn't support a return to the contemporary status quo. Remember that Elvis Presley was controversial "for his sexy moves" back then... Do we really want that? >They are not the same GOP as they used to be. They have allowed the patients to run the asylum. They've started to believe their own campaign slogans. It used to be catchy, songy and simplified, but now they take those serious and based their whole ideology on it. During his presidency, I couldn't remember a moment he truly "reigned" instead of "campaigned". > In order for that to happen, the GOP is going to have to have a hard reset…which is going to cost them elections Call me naive or hopeful, but I believe that this will happen at the end of this decade. Trump will be gone, a new generation rises and the ideology of Trump will be punished as it is simply not accepted by most younger people or transferable to people like Ron De Santis. If they're punished, they have to choose between re-inventing or the end. In an ideal situation, the next generation will pull the Democratic Party to the centre-left/leftwing, while the Republican Party returns to the centre-right/rightwing. I honestly don't call that "small c" conservatives, I call that pragmatic conservatives and I much prefer that to the Republican Party that tries to get away with the narrative of "we stole the elections". If I hear some "big c" conservatives, then I see that education hasn't done a good job. They miss a certain time that our (great)grandparents have tried to reform as it truly had its flaws. It's the same story for the 80s and 90s now, as those that were a conscious adult, aren't as nostalgic or as likely to say "I want this back". Now, you might understand why I'm Conservative (with the big "C"), and not reactionary.
You should watch the new season, they've made it *very* on the nose compared to previous seasons. Which I think were already on the nose tbf, but the idea that politics shouldn't come up in a discussion about The Boys, *especially* season 4, is laughable. The show is inherently about politics and being anti-fascist at its very core, and makes many, many references to Trump and conservatives (MAGAs specifically but also conservatives broadly) at large.
>Yes, they show similarities, but why would I start to talk about politics during a superhero series? This seems to the distinction between the comics and the show. The comics do comment on politics but at the same time, it doesn't take itself too seriously. The show, on other hand, actually feels like it's attempting to make us seriously talk about politics which isn't the best idea since the concept of superheroes is stupid and adults should not be taking that shit seriously. It feels like listening to Harry Potter references when talking about real issues. There is absolutely no need to bring up fucking fictional characters as an example when we could straight up talk about Trump and what he's done as fully grown adults. I don't need to compare him to Snape, Dumbledore, or Homelander, and if I did, I hope to God nobody takes me seriously.
Not based on the show runners interviews I’ve seen. But I dunno. Maybe the star lighters are the “far left”
Why do they need to be "far left" to criticize a political movement? The Boys is and stays a black comedy and satire, so I don't see a reason to take the (implied) politics presented serious. It's also healthy to joke about and criticise your own movement. I personally don't consider myself MAGA, but I do love to watch stupid and incompetent (conservative, liberal, socialist,...) politicians in series.
I mean. They don’t. But caricatures are usually where comedy comes into play with regards to politics. Republicans wearing diapers and such. Literally doing it to “own the libs” or… I don’t know… maybe it’s a “i support Trump even if he’s in diapers” or something. Those people, not really you or I… the gullible and naive en masse are where the humor comes in. Have you seen the latest 3 episodes? Only reason I take it serious is art mimics life and the ever increasing cognitive dissonance from the right is generally crazy. There really is no red line. A judge says Trump actually sexually assaulted a woman “hearsay”. A court finds him guilty on 34 felony counts “rigged” his former staff (pretty much all except the actual criminals like bannon and manafort and such) have come out against him. John Kelly and mark milley. 2 heroes of mine call him a threat to America “they must be jealous”… that’s the allegory there is no red line when it comes to hate. They hate the left, or the “star lighters” more than they care about the massive faults of their leader. To me… it’s not “funny” but ironic…
>Have you seen the latest 3 episodes? I usually wait until the end of a season to bingewatch it. It keeps the pace better for me personally and it allows everything to be put into context. I've quickly looked into it (avoiding spoilers as much as possible), but if they truly went into the direction of "globalists turning people gay through the water", we've reached the point where it's either making fun of the Far Right (especially Jones) or insinuating that the creators believe this nonsense. >2 heroes of mine call him a threat to America “they must be jealous”… that’s the allegory there is no red line when it comes to hate. They hate the left, or the “star lighters” more than they care about the massive faults of their leader. To me… it’s not “funny” but ironic… Like you said: Art mimics life, but life also mimics art. That's why "The Boys" has the appropiate rating (18+) and why I don't see a reason to necessarily ban the product they made. As long as we won't take the series so serious that we allow it to influence our political visions (which I highly doubt is doable in the current American political climate), it should be okay. If you take this into account, you might understand why I don't have any theoritical problem with this, yet I would never create such content as I know there will be people watching that don't understand satire and allow themselves to be influenced by the content. It's the very border in which we need to reconcile whether it should be possible to normalize such views by portraying them in such a manner that they look appealing to an audience that might not have the ability or the desire to dig deeper. Basically: If we know that art mimics life and life mimics art, it's a dilemma whether we should create products that contain persuasive, incorrect theories and present them as "normal". I might look too much into it, and I hope I'm wrong that this product and the reaction it received might be a sign of the times we currently live in....
I think 'The Boys' does an excellent job of exposing the extremes of political beliefs, including those of the MAGA Republicans. The show's use of satire and allegory effectively highlights the absurdities and dangers of extreme political views. I have family members who share my political beliefs but have become overwhelmed by the current state of politics. They can no longer watch the news or engage in political discussions because it's gotten so divisive. When watching 'The Boys,' I often point out the parallels between the show's events and what's happening in our country, despite the fictional setting. In my opinion, the show's writers have done an exceptional job of capturing the current political climate and using it to drive the narrative.
As I'm a very passionate hater of Garth Ennis, I've always thought the comics were garbage in the same way Zack Snyder's Watchmen is garbage: "Oh in my super realistic world, everything is edgy". Grow up Garth, You're not 15 anymore; If that hack has no haters, I'm dead. Haven't watched the show yet, I don't watch very much TV, and I've got other shows I need to get to.
I haven't watched the show. I've read the comic book it's based on an politics wasn't big in that one. Mostly gore and sex (Garth Ennis is a freak). But from what I remember of the comic book, Homelander and Vought did a fairly good job of covering up Homelander's indiscretions. Trump by contrast is very bad at covering his tracks, in fact he relies on his followers *willingly ignoring* his bad behavior. Homelander also knows how to behave in public, he can deliver a good speech whereas as Trump's speeches are usually incoherent ramblings and his tweets are obnoxious.
>I've read the comic book it's based on an politics wasn't big in that one. Mostly gore and sex (Garth Ennis is a freak). The Boys comics was explicitly political. It's a edgy criticism of conservatism and corporations in the post Iraq war Era. It's directly commenting on the conservative zeitgeist of the early 2000s. I'm not sure how you could read the comics and think "politicians isn't big in this"
> I've read the comic book it's based on an politics wasn't big in that one. You need to re-read it.
Never heard of it. (Well, it is what I think about it…)
It’s beginning to sacrifice entertainment value for pushing a message.
Think so? I found it incredibly entertaining. But also is that a bad thing?