Literally an apartheid state and we're rooting for characters that are committed to "keeping it safe" (this means further militarizing the border between Piltover and the undercity and killing children on accident and feeling really bad about it). There's plot elements that expose how bad Piltover is for undercity citizens, but that's just the other half of both-sidesing the issue and calling it a cycle of violence. No, the REAL and IMMEDIATE threat is Silco, the guy actually committed to resistance against apartheid Piltover and even the Good and Right characters are opposed to him - to the point that they're more willing to work with Piltover, the state that has been oppressing them their whole lives and which they constantly talk about how its oppressed them their whole lives, to take him down. There's even the gem at the end where Piltover is on the verge of granting the undercity sovereignty and freedom to end the fighting, but then someone decides to fire a fucking rocket straight into the room this decision is being made in. It almost feels 1 for 1 equivalents being made to Israel and Palestine based on hasbara narratives.

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] CliffordBigRedDog@hexbear.net 2 points 6 days ago

literally everyone is my enemy

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Season 1 was cool.

Season 2 is when everyone cool becomes a cop and does a lot of violence against the oppressed and then we're supposed to feel bad for the cops I guess. Oh and then the oppressed also become cops because magic big scary thing and then they all die so that the main cops can live.

Libs have zero imagination

[–] Lemister@hexbear.net 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

They also get just one seat at the table, just one

[–] CarmineCatboy2@hexbear.net 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I think the only problem is that the show is too subtle to be Zionist propaganda.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

the guy actually committed to resistance against apartheid

the drug-lord objectively lowering the standard of living and life expectancy of 'his people', but don't worry some of that blood money is sponsoring putting him on the throne of a "liberated" state. i think we're allowed to have stories where nationalists/representatives of oppressed groups can be shitty in their own right, without that equaling an endorsement of the oppression. Should we not criticize the Nation of Islam because of stated support for nationalism? How about the Palestinian Authority?

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think the bigger issue is that we so rarely get to see a "clean" revolution where the opressed class is led by people with good motives. That's not on Arcane specifically, but there is a lot of media where the scrappy upstarts sucessfully overthrow power only to have the new power be just as evil, but maybe in a different way (Hunger Games is a notable example).

Arcane plays into that ttope somewhat, but I wouldn't say it plays it straight

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 6 days ago

They always have to kick the dog, you can't make the revolutionaries too emphatic.

[–] Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Arcanes artstyle looks AI generated

[–] BigLenin@hexbear.net 0 points 6 days ago

I kinda agree. It's a Lib show I won't deny that.

I think Silco is presented as a bit more complex than that though. The guy is brutal, but season one ends with him ALMOST achieving his goal, Jayce agrees to give the Undercity independence with a few reasonable concessions which Silco agrees to uphold. I feel like an even more Lib version of the show would have had him continue to escalate the conflict our of stubbornness and hate, but not he has a clear goal, pursues it without compromise, and seems happy to end the conflict when his goal is reached. I've known a surprising number of Libs who actually sympathize with the character, so I'd argue his writing is pretty effective.

[–] yoink@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I genuinely debated myself about posting, because it's not that serious and I know Hexbear has made up its mind about this show and I don't want everyone jumping down my throat, but I think people don't give this show the nuance it actually has. Like I'm not trying to defend the show completely, there are for sure issues, but I mean at no point did I get the impression that we were supposed to root for Piltover. It's made clear from the jump that the entire council is heavily corrupt, and that even someone idealistic like Jayce ultimately has no chance at really changing the system. On top of that, the show does go to lengths to humanize Silco throughout the show - if anything, that's his whole character arc throughout Season 1, going from someone who is ready to spearhead a revolution at any cost to someone who feels like he has something to lose due to Jinx. I mean, the guy's a drug baron and we start off with him murdering the main character's father figure, but they do a lot throughout the season that by the end of it he comes across as a sympathetic character, which is the opposite direction that these things usually go with both-sidesing.

Which reminds me of the other thing that seems to get lost - I know we're communists, we're analysing it from a communist perspective, but the show at it's core is moreso about family and trauma than it is about politics. The entire reason that a rocket gets shot at the negotiation table at the end of Season 1 has less to do with intracity politics and more to do with the breaking down of familial bonds, and then as an addendum that's paralleled with the breaking down of peace relations. Again, there's a lot of issues with Arcane, and I know a lot of issues have specifically been brought up about Season 2, but idk it feels like people are taking a surface level analysis and writing takes about an imagined anti-leftist reading, at least one much further than the politics actually presented.