Yeah! Give that corporation a large portion of your income in exchange for goods, and then destroy those goods! That’ll show that completely separate person with zero ties to the corporation!
I agree with the sentiment, but they’re actually giving away those goods! to another corporation
Goodwill is non-profit
They still suffer from a corporate mindset, unfortunately. Salvation Army, too, although that’s not mentioned here.
This has to be a troll right? I refuse to believe anyone uses “smartoons” unironically
it is, i lied to everyone
Listen here Morty
I love how the way he wrote that makes it seem like he considers this dude hurting the fandom and killing some show to be a worse transgression than hurting his girlfriend.
hurting millios of smart adult fans (like me) every single day and second 😢😢 or a girl getting hurt two tims a day. Please think abut before comenting 😭😭😭
Eh, it’s ambiguous which event he is referring to. Could be either.
“Intelligent adult” + funko pop collection….who’s gonna tell him?
I’m pretty sure it’s a joke my dude. Someone just took a picture of funko pops and wrote funny words.
Yeah, most of these funko pops seem to about Marvel/DC than rick and Morty, although it’s still funny as hell
Ther are ~25 Ricks in this collection. I didn’t count all the dolls but it looks to be at least ¼ is just rick and mortys
I know! I was attempting humor myself. I’m just bad at it.
I am cringing so hard @ ‘smartoon’ rn…
I want it to be satirical but then I remember that someone somewhere unironically believes there is something called a “manosphere”.
what the hell is a… nvm I don’t even want to know
It’s everything from redpill misogynists to people who just support men’s rights and saying we should should direct resources to prevent male suicides is the exact same thing as saying women are property and deserve no rights or autonomy and there is no middle ground.
It is important to understand what people are saying about this because when you hear someone say something that seems reasonable and correct but suddenly they show their extremist stance but then you dismiss that part because you don’t realize what they are saying.
This is how all extremist groups get people on their side from Isis to Jordan Peterson to far right politics.
Two men enter, only one man leaves!
If there was a moment for “dies of cringe” this is definitely one of them
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Rick’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they’re not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools… how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
🤢😬😶
It’s a copypasta dude
Cant tell if this is like legit idiot, or the best parody ever.
It’s a copypasta
Yeah, my first sighting of copypasta in Lemmy.
Yes, let’s not forget the real victims, the poor Goodwill volunteer that has to go through this collection and sanitize anything vaguely pickle-shaped.
What the hell why’s this one in a jar?
Least cringe Rick & Morty fan
If only there was a way to distinguish between the artist and the art… but since both are always the same, it will for all times be impossible to enjoy the art of an artist that committed some assholery.
Wait till people figure out what DaVinci, Rembrandt, Mozart, Picasso did and say when they were still alive, young, inexperienced and horny. Yes! Horny! Despite their talent they were ordinary people, young men with dicks! We’re going to have to empty the whole effing Louvre after finding out.
There’s an important difference: those guys are all dead, and so are their victims. Somebody’s great great great great grandmother won’t retroactively become more abused just because you look at a painting.
It isn’t about enjoying art created by someone who did awful things, it’s about continuing to reward that someone with fame and fortune and giving them free passes to do more awful things just because they have a talent that you appreciate. It’s about valuing aesthetics over morals. By all means, continue to enjoy art made by scumbags. I do. Just don’t continue to bankroll their abuse of others after you find out that they’re scumbags.
I need out of Rick and Morty after hearing you need a high IQ to understand it. Can anyone explain the post?
Wasnt Roiland actually cleared by the court?
Yes, but: a lot of other pretty unwholesome stuff came out about him during the process and his contract has a clause in it that allows him to be terminated on that basis; it’s actually pretty common for people in his kind of position to have contracts like that.
Got a lonk? Curious to see what other stuff came out.
in any case it’s nothing that anyone dared to show any judge.
so for all intents and purposes, bullshit
doesn’t matter, these"judges" already convicted him. Forget due process. Getting accused publicly == being guilty forever on social media.
It’s also important to remember that this is how most abuse cases work out. There is almost never enough evidence because it is almost impossible to proof beyond reasonable doubt. It’s incredibly rare that someone gets convicted in an abuse case, no matter if they actually committed abuse or not. The victim has to basically stand in court with the gunk and fingerprints of the perpetrator still on them and video material that shows it wasn’t self-defense from the other side, for any conviction to actually happen.
So we should be satisfied ruining people’s lives based on accusations alone?
That’s what you take from it? No, I think there should be no reports or articles or mentions on any cases that have not yet been decided upon by a court. A private’s persons life is not ruined by an accusation because it almost never leads to a conviction, regardless of whether they are guilty or not.
Sorry, I thought you were saying in subtext that we should only judge based on accusations since evidence is hard to get for abuse cases. My bad!
No, I am really not that good in English. I often realise people understand it slightly different than what I meant. But I can’t do anything about it lol
How does that saying go again? By the time Truth puts its shoes on, a Lie has travelled around the world.
Love seeing people who can’t separate the art from the artist. Next in: Cthulhu in the intro sequence is proof that R&M is racist.
I can easily separate them, but I choose not to when any money spent on the art still benefits the artist
Removed by mod
I shamelessly stole this, but I agree with the opinion:
There are those who believe Justin Roiland must be guilty of something anyway so it’s a “good move to distance themselves.” Those people have short memories regarding Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
The remaining allegations against Justin Roiland are just that, with no proof against Roiland. Screenshots only prove that a conversation took place not who was actually speaking.
Make no mistake that if there’s an actual crime committed then he should go to jail. But the rule of law is that he’s presumed innocent until proven guilty. The argument that “It’s a private company, they can do what they want” ignores that fact.
Justin Roiland has been unjustly treated in this, and many fans are voicing our opinions about it. The truth is that the show is moving forward despite our objections
This is a terrible take. He was an annoyance and liability for the show. He contributed minimally and these productions are better off without him.
The “Innocent until proven guilty” part of the argument only makes sense of he was only fired for breaking the law.
While I do not disagree with your opinion, all charges were dropped. He may be a complete dipshit, but until something is proven you’re just witch hunting
There was more than just the stuff with his wife though. Dude likes 14 year old girls and had many inappropriate texts with underage girls. Go listen to the audio of when he was a guest on a podcast talking about how some 14 year old girls are “developed” and physically ready etc. He’s fucking gross and was a hindrance to the show.
That said. The rest of the crew was happy to drop him, so I have no problem continuing to support the show.
I definitely support the show, but it is still a public declaration of guilt without evidence or trial. If there were inappropriate texts with minors the investigators would have surely done something. You’re calling the guy guilty instead of just calling him sleazy. There’s a big difference in losing your job for an accusation vs a guilty verdict.
I do think moving forward without him was the right choice, but I do not believe publicizing the accusations against him and ruining him without a trial was right
We live in a society with both social and legal consequences for our actions.
Presumption of innocence is for legal matters. Me calling him guilty is not a legal matter. It’s a social consequence of his actions.
The gross texts are available to read. They are undisputed facts. He is guilty of sending them.
There are no legal consequences for those texts. The social consequences include losing his job.
Do you feel we should live in a society with only legal consequences and no social consequences?
Both of your points were already addressed in the OP.
The gross texts are available to read. They are undisputed facts. He is guilty of sending them.
There are screenshots with no one claiming ownership. Investigators saw far more than you or I did and decided there wasn’t enough evidence to push charges.
Do you feel we should live in a society with only legal consequences and no social consequences?
Coughs in Johnny Depp
I guess my question to you is: why make the comment at all, when your concerns were already addressed? I’m here. I’ll talk to you. How was your day?
I am still unclear… what’s he done or is accused of doing???
A long list of unprofessionalism and sexually explicit actions/conversations. He’s been booted from the show.
I mean one is discussed in the article linked…
But there are 2 different accusation cases:
1st: accused of domestic abuse, false imprisonment, menacing, and something else by ex girlfriend. The charges were dropped but not because he was declared innocent but because “We dismissed the charges today as a result of having insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Which is legalese for them saying "there isn’t enough evidence to say he did or didn’t do it besides hearsay so we have to dismiss the charges. So again he wasn’t “found innocent”, they just never went to trial.
2nd: he’s been accused of grooming multiple under age Rick and Morty fans. A plethora of fans have come forward with incriminating pictures of messages from their convos on various messenger services. This one hasn’t had much traction since like January but it happened at the same as his domestic abuse case was going public.
He wasn’t supposed to be “found innocent”, he was supposed to be “proven guilty”. The way you put it into quotations makes it sound like you want him to prove his innocence when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Not at all, I personally have no pony in this race. But if the issue never went to trial he literally wasn’t found innocent. No trial = No guilt or innocence legally speaking. Getting charges dismissed doesn’t automatically equate legally either to guilt or innocence under the circumstances that he got for dismissal. The only qualifier is “there wasn’t enough evidence produced to make this worth the courts time.” Now if that means to you he’s automatically been proven “innocent” I don’t know what to tell you. To me it doesn’t mean he’s innocent, just the other party couldn’t reliably prove their accusations. I do notice you are silent about the grooming thing though.
It’s also interesting to see people making the comparisons to Depp and Heard trial when they did actually prove Depp was abusive towards Heard but Heard wasn’t a saint either. Anyone who actually paid attention to the trial without any bias can in no logical mind think either of them were innocent angels.
It all reads to me like they couldn’t prove he was guilty. So, there’s your answer.
I choose not to reply about the allegations because I have no information about the situation other than the paragraph you wrote. That still doesn’t render my point invalid that you think someone needs to prove their innocence in a court, even when the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If there wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty then he’s not guilty. Or do you think that everyone who’s ever stepped foot in a court to plead their innocence is guilty, even if the prosecution had no real evidence against the person? Not really invested in the Heard and Depp trial either, but the man had his whole career ruined over it so I think he’s been dealt more than his fair share of punishment.
Edit: Also with all these celeb scandals happening you’d think that celebrities would not use their official or traceable accounts to do shady shit, but maybe that’s expecting too much smartness from them.
Nope but it’s a case by case basis. The burden of proof is on the prosecution but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, depending on the accusation laid. If I punch you but you don’t report it till the bruise is gone for what ever reason and you have no witnesses or evidence to prove it, did a crime still occurr?
Not being found guilty IS being found innocent, that’s how justice works
deleted by creator
Guilty until proven innocent eh? I’ve been accused of crimes that I didn’t commit and had to go to court and trial to fight… how do we know he wasn’t falsely accused?
That’s the problem with crimes without witnesses. It’s your word against mine, and the world is full of people who commit these crimes but also full of people who, knowing that this is the situation, will falsely accuse others of them. Without major privacy violations becoming the norm, it’s a pickle I don’t really see a way out of: somebody will continue to get the short end of the stick.
I mean, they had chat logs of him coming on to minors. I don’t think it’s as unclear as you think it is.
I’m speaking in general, not about this particular case.
General! -.-7
Well said.
