They missed “environmental catastrophe unrelated to climate change that is getting ignored because it’s unrelated to climate change”
Soil depletion, micro plastics, habitat loss, fertilizer runoff, invasive species, heavy metal contamination, light pollution, etc etc. Yes climate change is a big fucking problem, but if it were to magically get resolved overnight we’d still wake up to a mountain of other human-created environmental issues. But because everyone is so focused on climate change specifically, we’re standing still (or even moving backward) on other issues. For example: electric cars are heralded as an environmental solution, but they: still require a lot of mining and resource extraction, still pollute through tire and brakepad wear, still produce a mountain of waste at the end of their lifespan, still use asphalt roads that require salting in winter, and still promote poor land use that creates all kinds of domino-effect problems (environmental and otherwise). Similarly hydroelectric is promoted as a sustainable energy source, but they wreak absolute havoc on river ecosystems.
The Mario movie was incredibly mediocre, despite its high production value. I’m talking MCU-levels of truckloads of money spent with shockingly little to show for it.
Sure some habitat loss is due directly or indirectly to climate change, like polar bears, seals, and penguins losing the ice they need to breed and/or feed. But other instances are completely unrelated. For example, monarch butterflies in North America have experienced huge decreases in population due to an increase in herbicide use that destroyed massive numbers of milkweed plants, the only plant they lay eggs on, as well as destruction of the trees the monarchs over winter on in Mexico (eg through clear-cutting for avocado farms). Climate change has also hurt monarchs in various ways, but the specific issue of monarch habitat loss is generally unrelated.
…the average American had between 400 and 500 calories worth of snacks a day, which is typically more than what they ate at breakfast. Even worse, the snacks usually carried little to no nutritional value
All food has gotten expensive due to inflation/greedflation, but (at least in my area) snacks, desserts, and some sugary drinks got hit especially hard. Except maybe for people living in food deserts, snacks are way more of a luxury good than “whole” foods are nowadays.
This mostly relates to stuff you disagree with (politically, etc):
It’s really easy on the Internet to live in a bubble, surrounded by others and material you like and agree with. This is especially true when it comes to the political right or left. Posting/viewing material from the “other side” serves three purposes: 1) it’s different from what your Internet crowd posts and therefore novel and interesting, 2) it’s something to gawk at, and 3) it keeps your crowd up to date on what the opposition is doing and thinking, which is important if you want to debate/defeat/win them over.
Example: you’re on the left and a “look what the right is memeing” sub/community starts posting a lot of trad-wife material. You have now been 1) introduced to a new concept (and thereby upgraded your Internet cred with new slang), 2) provided with novel material to yourselves meme about and make fun of (in this example, Ben Shapiro’s sister’s oversized titties), and 3) inoculated to the concept so when your 19-year-old cousin starts whining at Thanksgiving about how all the women at college are sluts and why can’t he find himself a good traditional wife you can give his manosphere-brainwashed ass a thorough smackdown thanks to some sweet rhetoric you picked up from the snarky comments section of aforementioned posts, instead of weakly stammering something about equal partnerships (or worse yet, not understanding the nuance behind wanting a “traditional wife” and thinking this is a perfectly normal expectation for dating in the 21st century that totally won’t lead down the path of inceldom).
There is another, 4th reason: self-reflection. Sometimes, during a blue super-moon lunar eclipse, you see content that’s from the other side that makes you wonder, “are we the baddies?” Or perhaps, “okay maybe they have a point there.” Or at the very least, “yeah I can see where maybe we’re not at our absolute best on this particular aspect of this specific issue.” At least, it would be nice if that ever happened, right?
As someone who watched Haruhi back when it was originally broadcast, it’s amazing that people are still discussing the series seventeen years later. In an era when an anime’s impact seems to only last a single season before the fandom moves on, this is especially impressive. Haruhi deserves to stick around, if for no other reason than its historic value; it’s difficult to describe to younger fans just what an impact the anime made on the scene when it dropped.
Part of your problem is that half the folks posting to those subs have no idea what “moe” means either. Folks, it’s not supposed to be a catch-all term for sexy anime women!
Everyone has their own definition of moe, and I’m far from an expert because it’s not my thing, but my understanding (based on how the word was used in the US and in Japan during the 2010s anyway) is this: It’s kinda like the protecc meme… Something that is moe is usually cute, small, maybe a bit defenseless or derpy. It’s something that causes a feeling of “I love and want to protect this cute little thing”… Like how you might feel about a puppy, especially if the puppy is doing something cute and derpy like a heckin’ protecc (in normal people speak: something that’s adorable because it’s not especially exceptional but it feels exceptional when the cute little thing does it, like a puppy that thinks he’s protecting his mama when he barks at a butterfly and then looks pleased with himself when it flutters away, which causes you the viewer to say “d’aw aren’t you just the best little guard dog, yes you are!”). Except puppies are not usually considered moe as moe has a sexual connotation because it’s an otaku thing so of course it does. In other words it’s a term with a pretty strong loli vibe (up until very recently I had never seen it used in reference to anything but girls or maybe women with girlish traits, or girl-like creatures, like monster-musume). Moe got especially big around the time K-On came out, and for a while that series was heralded as the ultimate moe anime: cute girls doing cute things. It’s kinda like the daughter version of “waifu.” And some people do use the term in a more innocent, non-sexual way, but then there’s the hentai doujinshi and body pillow crowd that taint the entire concept (as with all things anime).
Therefore it’s really fucking confusing to see these “moe” communities filled with adult-presenting anime characters sporting G-cups and “fuck me” eyes. Maybe some moe communities use the term correctly, again it’s not my thing so I don’t go searching for it, but the ones I’ve stumbled across in the deep recesses of all sure don’t seem to fit the bill. Am I just old and out of touch with how the kids use their Japanese-derived slang nowadays? Did the normies start altering the use of otaku terms after anime became mainstream? Eh, maybe. But for at least a solid decade moe had a specific, albeit poorly defined, meaning.
Edit: I generally agree with loppy’s comment, in that what they describe is a technically more correct and authentic way to use the term “moe.” However it’s a situation akin to how most people use “decimate” to mean “obliterate,” even though it technically means “to reduce by 1/10th.” IMO what I describe is how most/nearly all (Western) otaku and weebs would describe/use moe, while loppy’s over in the corner going “actually…” In other words, what I’ve described is the “normie otaku” definition, and loppy’s is the “otaku of otaku” definition. So I guess that means that I’d still consider my answer “correct” because it’s the more common definition, even though it’s technically wrong.
A psych PhD I know once said of their fellow grad students: “most of them could have saved a lot of time and money if they’d just gone to therapy instead.”
I don’t personally know many people who are Gen Z (I’m a Millennial, and most people I know are Millennials, Xers, or Boomers). So most of what I “know” of Zoomers comes from things I’ve read, either social media conversations like this one or news articles/thought pieces. The impression I’ve gleaned from those is that Zoomers are not frugal: they’re Apple customers, chronic online shoppers (often for products like fast fashion that are individually cheap but quickly add up), and are spending big on experiences like travel and concerts. For example, another comment in the thread asserts that “[Zoomers] needlessly spend more money than their older generation counterparts [on technology because they replace rather than repair].”
Now I take these types of demographic assumptions with a grain of salt, especially having witnessed all the nonsense articles and conclusions made about my generation. However there is some logic behind the explanations I’ve heard for why Zoomers are spenders rather than savers. Such as, perhaps Zoomers are more focused on living (and spending) in the moment given their experience being deprived during their formative years that happened to fall during covid lockdowns. Perhaps Zoomers spend more frivolously because why bother save for a bleak future (“go ahead and splurge a little: it’s not like you’ll ever afford a house either way!” or “In the 21st century you can do everything ‘right’ and still easily end up failing, so why bother following the ‘right’ path?”) Perhaps it’s because we’ve created a world (at least in the US) where people are lonelier than ever and everything costs money: you can’t even hang out at the mall for free anymore because the mall was torn down last year, so you either spend money at another “3rd space” like a coffee shop, or you try to fill an emotional hole by purchasing things to make being stuck at home all the time more bearable (especially if you’re still living with your parents because you can’t afford to move out). Perhaps it’s because there’s more addictive stuff to spend money on that’s targeted at youth, like online streamers and pay-to-play games. Again I don’t know if any of this is true, but IMO it at least passes the sniff test.
However your comment asserts the opposite of what I’ve heard, so I was curious where you got your info from, especially since it’s presumably based in some kind of research if it was part of a work report. Did you survey Zoomers asking about their spending habits? Did you analyze credit card data? Etc.
I can’t speak to its reception with film critics, but the word of mouth opinions I heard were very positive. It was also nominated for a number of Oscars.
Agreed, the novelty of anime was a huge draw for me as well (especially since at the time there weren’t any anime-influenced Western cartoons). There are of course still standouts in anime that were revolutionary at the time and have since aged well (such as NGE and Cowboy Bebop, both of which are now over two decades old). There are also a few series that maybe weren’t masterpieces but still feel unique, as well as a handful that are cultural behemoths in and of themselves (like Gundam). But as with all media, the more you consume the more patterns emerge until the whole medium starts to feel tired.
There’s a fan recut that takes all the time skip scenes and puts them in chronological order that’s much more straightforward. Personally I can’t imagine watching it that way, but I also refuse to acknowledge The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya except in broadcast order. There’s definitely a large contingent that prefer both these media in chronological order though, so you’re not alone.