Saturday Night Special Presentation

[tsarina-anadyomene]

The whole system is terraformed/has habitable domes or some nonsense. Where are you dropping?

Mercury

Venus

Earth (no place like home)

Mars

Jupiter

Saturn

Uranus

Neptune

Voting ended onJul 16, 2025

[tothewhirlwind]

idk what you weirdos are doing all the way out there but if you need me I'll be out having a pint by the sea watching a weeks long Venusian sunset

[tsarina-anadyomene]

venusians while martians are mining rocks for their rock factories

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Had trouble deciding between the mountains of Iapetus and the oceans of Europa

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

So, I've been reading a lot of Richie Rich comics trying to figure out... Why is he called "The Poor Little Rich Boy"?

I mean, not only is he obscenely, really offensively wealthy, he also appears to have a very loving family, several close friendships, and a long history of philanthropy to look back on with pride.

An old blog on here used Richie Rich covers as a way to make sarcastic jokes about smashing capitalism, and that really brought it together.

The tragedy is that Richie is very well aware that all of his interactions with his good friends inevitably revolve around the vast difference in wealth between him and them, placing them in a subordinate position no matter how much Richie would prefer to be equals with them.

And he's equally aware that there's nothing he did to earn it; that his vast wealth is simply the result of blind luck, that his friends are just as kind, courageous, and clever as he is, and there's no just reason why he should be unspeakably richer than they are.

And yet, even as he recognizes the system is unjust, what good would it do to reject his wealth, to voluntarily put himself into poverty?

A gesture like that would do no damage to the system that produces these obscene inequalities; in fact it would leave not just him, but all of his dear friends defenseless and at the mercy of exactly this horribly unfair system.

And deep down, below that, he must wonder, "Who is Richie Rich without his money?" Is he anybody? Robbed of his gadgets and literal army of loyal servants and the ability to shower his friends and neighbors with expensive gifts, would he have anything to offer the world?

And a little voice in his head very occasionally whispers to him,

"You're only pretending that you hang onto all this money for philanthropy, because you're too scared to admit how selfish you really are."

And how many of us can never say that we haven't felt the same way, sloganeering about eating the rich while desperately seeking more money and the security it brings? And feeling all the while like disgusting hypocrites but rightfully terrified of the effects of poverty?

Truly, Richie Rich embodies the profound moral contradictions that characterize these times of profound wealth inequality.

Poor little rich boy indeed.

Maybe he could try getting really into dots? It seems to work for Little Dot.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Hey, when I was cleaning out my storage unit I found my old CDs AND an external CD drive, and I found some old CDs with music that has VANISHED FROM THE GODDAMNED INTERNET WITHOUT A TRACE.

First, two songs I've had stuck in my head for probably like five years but I couldn't listen to them because even though the artists who made them still have some internet presence, this particular stuff isn't around.

Visit Original Link

Man, I've had that song (And a couple others I can't upload, because apparently if you upload a song to a draft post, then decide to delete the file and put it in another part of your draft, it still counts against your daily upload limit) in my head for YEARS now and there's nothing I could do about it.

Do you realize that before the internet you would just hear a song on the radio and if you didn't hear the DJ explain who it was you just had to be okay with the fact that you might never hear it again?

They made a whole episode of Pete and Pete about it. It's called "A Hard Day's Pete". It's good!

Okay, but those are songs where the internet sort of knows they exist, before now nobody could listen to them online, but there were discog listings, or bandcamp pages for the people who made them.

I downloaded all these off of MP3.com 25 years ago on a 56k modem. It took like an hour to download one file.

Okay, grandpa, nobody cares, well you're gonna care, because I know you kids today like this "lost media" stuff and I have unearthed some fucking proper lost media. Stuff so totally and utterly forgotten that nobody even remembers that they don't remember it.

Despite working under the incredibly specific name of magiCboY and listing these tracks under the equally specific album name "A Week on The Red Planet" whoever made these tracks has pulled a goddamned DB Cooper.

There is nothing about this on the english speaking internet that I can find. No hits on Google. No hits on DuckDuckGo. None whatsoever for the album title or the band name or two of the track titles. The third title, "Biker Billy Cooks With Fire" is a reference to an American cable access cooking show from the 90s.

Which looks like a cool show but doesn't really help.

Visit Original Link

Visit Original Link

Visit Original Link

[artist-issues]

That’s It.

I’m tired of seeing everyone repeat the same four points: “1) Nani gives Lilo to the state! 2) Hawaii has a better marine biology program than San Fransisco! 3) Jumba doesn’t get redeemed! 4) Pleakley’s not wearing a dress!”

Those are not the only things that were bad about this remake. You could easily tell it was going to be all that and more beforehand, but most people’s reaction to the trailer was “it’s surprisingly good!” and now they’re acting all surprised. If you didn’t see this coming, enough to purchase a ticket, you’re part of the problem and you don’t get the original movie any more than the people who made this remake did.

So I’m done being quiet, this is the Lilo & Stitch 2025 Takedown Post.

And as usual the only good thing about an attempted-remake is that it gives people a reason to think about what made the original so good.

Let’s go in order. But just scroll down to the Heading you Care About if you don’t want to read all this.

1. Cobra Bubbles

In this movie, Cobra Bubbles is a secret agent hunting for aliens and they have a new character take his place as the state social worker.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With this Change: “We shouldn’t have a black man or a government worker feel like an insensitive antagonist to Lilo’s family.”

That’s a stupid surface-level one-dimensional misread of the character from the original…and it wouldn’t have been hard, at all, for a child to explain to the 2025 filmmakers that Cobra is not an insensitive antagonist in the original.

Cobra Bubbles is not insensitive and he is not in any way portrayed as a bad guy in the original. Nani sees him that way, Nani sees him as antagonistic, because he’s the representation of Lilo being taken away.

But Nani is wrong about him and learns that she is wrong about him by the end of the movie.

Can we please make a list?

Cobra’s first interaction with the caretaker of the child he was being sent to protect was that she ran out into the road, yelled at a complete stranger, and dented his car.

Then he found her locked out of the home and threatening the child inside with a hammer in her hand.

Then he found out the stove was on while she was out, and she’d left a 7 year-old alone.

The 7 year-old made comments about being disciplined with bricks and a pillow case.

The 7 year-old looks like she might be more than a little emotionally unbalanced because she’s figuring out how to put voodoo spells on her friends to punish them.

He still gave that pair of sisters three days to straighten the ship. When in actuality, in 2002, under HRS §587-73, (don’t play with me) the social worker would’ve been well within his rights to remove the child from the home right then. But instead he gives her three days to fix it. THEN

The 18 year-old loses her job.

The family gets a “dog” who he is implied to know is an alien, right off the bat.

The alien is violent and wreaks havoc across town.

The 7 year-old almost drowns while they surf instead of find a job.

He lets the child and caretaker have one more night together to say goodbye, but when he’s on the way to get her he gets a call that she’s being attacked by aliens, hears a chainsaw, and finds the house on fire.

Do you understand what I’m saying.

Cobra Bubbles had NO BUSINESS being as BIG A SOFTIE AS HE WAS for all of the original movie. He was not only well within his legal rights to take Lilo away from Nani immediately, but he was actually required by law, it was his DUTY, to remove her immediately. But he didn’t do that. Why?

Now listen to me very carefully.

Lilo and Stitch is a movie about how “Family chooses to love and commit to one another selflessly, no matter what the other person can do for them or how hard they make it.” The fancy way they say it is just “Ohana means family: family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.”

Did you catch that? “No matter how hard they make it.”

Cobra Bubbles was a CIA agent before this. A CIA agent who saved the planet, by doing what? Convincing an alien race to leave them alone. Oh, he didn’t fight them off? No. How? He “convinced” them? He talked it out? Sounds like a pretty compassionate guy, for all his tough exterior. How did he do that?

He could’ve picked any animal that’s actually endangered. The filmmakers chose to make him the guy who convinced aliens to value mosquitos.

MOSQUITOS. Creatures that give nothing, only take. Ugly little bloodsucking monsters. That’s the creature he convinced them to care about enough to save the planet.

NOW do you have any trouble understanding why this is the specific social worker who would give an alien-infested dumpster fire of a dangerous home a chance when two sisters are about to be torn apart?

Do you see that Cobra is just another example of the grace that the movie is always talking about? The love that transforms someone from bad to good simply because it refuses to give up even when it gets nothing out of it? I’m repeating myself because I want you to see why he was a well-done character who NEEDED NO CHANGE.

Cobra Bubbles’ character is not an insensitive monster who doesn’t care who his actions hurt as long as he gets the job done. But you know who that does sound like?

2. Gantu

Gantu is not in the remake at all.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With This Change: “It’s going to cost us upwards of 1.5 millions of dollars to design, sculpt, rig, animate, and render a character this big in addition to finding a suitable voice actor to play the part.”

This is a really dumb choice for several reasons. A. Without Gantu, there is no “stakes-raiser” to Lilo and Nani’s story. The movie has no climax without him. For the first and second acts of the movie, it’s about a grieving pair of girls trying to prove themselves to a social worker while the story-equivalent of Beethoven the Destructive St. Bernard wacky Jumba & Pleakley antics get in their way. But when a 40-foot tall alien stomps into their lives and abducts Lilo & Stitch in a spaceship that careens around the island during an explosive sky-chase scene, now you have a high-octane, somebody-could-die climax.

B. Without Gantu, Stitch looks weaker. The climax gave Stitch a reason to come out of the wackadoo puppy he’s been posing as and suddenly remind everybody that he’s a lethal weapon who can survive thousand-foot drops, lava, and astronomic explosions—and a giant alien’s Thanos-dwarfing fist. Take him out and who do we have as a match for Stitch to go up against, even for a moment, and prove how much he’s changed to be willing to risk his freedom and fight?

C. Without Gantu you have no villain to reflect that STITCH is no longer a villain. (So they substituted Jumba.)

But the reason this character is really worth millions is, again, the theme.

I told you Cobra Bubbles was a character who did not put “duty” or even “convenience” or “position” over the real lives of Lilo and Nani. He saw that there was love there, and in his own way, he gave it a chance. And even when he chose to take Lilo away, he did it carefully; he gave them time to say goodbye.

GANTU IS THE OPPOSITE OF COBRA BUBBLES.

Gantu is the insensitive, uncaring, unyielding Captain whose commitment to duty turns into rage and cruelty. Not Cobra.

Nani thinks Cobra is walking in a threatening to tear apart their family in a display of government judgement. But that’s what Gantu literally does.

His first reaction to Stitch is to call for his destruction. Without even waiting to see if “it can be reasoned with” like the Grand Councilwoman suggests. He’s merciless. He mocks Stitch when Stitch is captive. And he knows that he caught Lilo, a human, along with him. He doesn’t care. He even suggests that Stitch eat her as a snack.

There are only two other characters who laugh at others’ misfortune in the movie. One is Stitch, the original villain. Then love changes him. The other is Jumba, who made Stitch. Then love changes him. But Gantu never gets changed. He’s only concerned with his job, and with personally annihilating the flaws he sees in Stitch.

Gantu is unyielding, ungracious, and cruel. And he’s big and powerful enough to be a test for Stitch to prove he’s changed. For the benefits he brings to the story, he’s worth 1.5 million and more. But they cut him anyway.

3. Jumba

In the new movie, Jumba is a villain through-and-through with designs on overthrowing the Galactic Council using Stitch, and instead of being redeemed, he’s sentenced to prison.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With This Change: “We can’t spend money on our real villain so we’ll just keep Jumba evil.”

The reason this is dumb is obvious. They created their own problem, and the ‘fix’ makes the movie weaker, not stronger. But here’s how.

In the original, Jumba is introduced as trying to self-protect. He’s on trial, and he lies. But when Stitch is revealed, he’s genuinely passionate about the thing he’s created. And he cares about image. He prefers to be called “evil genius,” and he hates the headlines labelling him “idiot scientist.”

You have to remember he’s part of “Galaxy Defense Industries.” They had him making weapons of destruction anyway. He just got too into it with his genetic Experiments, went a little insane.

I’m not downplaying the fact that Jumba is evil at the start of the movie. He is. It is evil to be outcasted from society and then respond to that with, “well, if they’re going to treat me like an idiot, I’LL SHOW THEM, I won’t care about anything except my passion for mad science!” That’s evil.

But it also explains a lot.

I said it in another post. Jumba’s whole utility as a character is that he knows who and what Stitch really is, better than anyone. He made him to be a monster who can’t belong and wreaks havoc on everybody else’s ‘place of belonging.’ Jumba is the audience’s insider’s perspective on what is going on in Stitch’s head, at first.

But when he’s redeemed, it happens fast. And why? Because that’s how plain and simple Stitch is, as a character. Jumba knows Stitch is a disgusting little monster with nothing inherently loveable about him, and no “greater purpose.” So when his disgusting monster is loved by someone? When his disgusting monster is willing to ask him, Jumba, for help? Something totally outside his programming, totally not what Jumba thought he’d ever be capable of?

That proves to Jumba, in an instant, that there’s love out there that transforms. And creates a place of belonging.

There were already germs of that, a desire to belong, a compassion, in Jumba after he reached earth.

He doesn’t try to get Nani fired, he offers an explanation for Pleakley’s swollen head.

He claims he won’t hit Lilo (why would he care about collateral damage?)

He sounds sorry for Nani when she’s upset about losing Lilo, and tries to keep Stitch from bothering her.

My point is, Jumba’s redemption isn’t important because it’s cute or because we need to set up the big happy found-family trope everybody loves.

Jumba’s redemption is important because it is just one more PROOF that what’s happened to Stitch is so incredible. The love Jumba finds transforming his monster is enough to transform Jumba, too.

But sure, fine, whatever, make him a soulless one-dimensional talking head. Whatever.

4. Stitch’s Design

In this movie, Stitch is cuter than he is ugly, and he’s half Lilo’s size.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With This Change: “Ugly-cute doesn’t come across as well in ‘live action’ animation. And all the Wal-Mart moms remember Stitch as ‘cute.’ Plus we’ll save about 15% in rendering the animation.”

This is crippling to the characterization of Stitch.

Stitch is supposed to be an echo of who Lilo could become now that she’s lost her parents and may be losing Nani. This scene:

Where Jumba points out that Stitch has nothing, and destruction is his only purpose, is the evidence for that. But Chris Sanders, who made this whole story, also point-blank said it. Stitch is a future Lilo, if she loses her family.

So that’s reason number 1 that he should be her same height. But also, practically, no iconic pair of best friends, yin and yang, have visuals where one is smaller than the other. Especially not if one of them is supposed to be disguised as a pet.

The point is, Stitch is not LILO’s pet. He is her best friend, her other half. But between the muzzle-muscles they worked into his upper lip and the darkened dog nose and the butt-scooting across the floor, the remake is trying to make him more pet-like in relation to Lilo.

That’s not what he is.

I said this in another post. But Stitch is supposed to throw food to the back of his head like a gator—his lips are not designed for forming words. His gums and teeth are supposed to look like a shark’s. His nose is supposed to be too big, stamped into his face. His ears are supposed to be like bat ears, not bunny ears. He hunches forward, instead of bending at the waist like a toddler. His eyes can narrow to lizard slits.

He has to look like he can believably be a disgusting monster. Yes, he can also be cute. But he has to first look like a monster. Because that’s what he really is, in the story. If he isn’t, then LILO’s love for him doesn’t look as powerful.

It is easy to love a cat even if it scratches you, because it’s cute. It’s harder to love a life-sized spider that keeps knocking you down and eating your prized possessions and laughing when you get hurt. Stitch is supposed to be closer to the second one, so that Lilo’s love shines brighter.

But also, practically:

She can’t look him in the eye for emotional shots when he’s that short. He’ll always have to awkwardly be standing on a box or a chair or a bed.

How is he going to scoop her up, hero-style, and leap off of an exploding spaceship with her in his arms, when he’s half her size? He could do it: it’ll look stupid, though. So they just don’t have that part in the movie.

She can pick him up. That alone is demeaning and again, the visuals are silly. Not what we’re going for.

5. Lilo’s Personality

In this movie, Lilo doesn’t like weird stuff, and she screams when she first meets Stitch. There’s no problem that this solves. It’s just laziness and a lack of care about the characters.

I would like to remind you that the original Lilo:

Made her own doll that looks like a shrunken head and pretended a bug laid eggs in her ears.

Makes up stories about a fish that controls the weather and actively deep-sea dives to bring it peanut butter sandwiches.

Has a knee-jerk reaction of using practical voodoo spells on friends who wrong her.

Listens exclusively to Elvis Presley.

Fills baby bottles with coffee.

Believes Nani’s manager is a vampire.

Has fishing nets and seashells in her room for decoration.

takes safari pictures of overweight bleached tourists.

meets a social worker and her first impulse is to ask if he’s killed someone.

Nails the door shut when she’s mad at her big sister.

She’s not friends with pound dogs in that original movie; when they first get there she acts like she’s never been in the kennel before, and originally wants a pet lobster.

I know that we all love that little girl they got to play Lilo, but if you were really being objective, you’d acknowledge that she’s a little girl. She’s not Lilo. She’s a cute little girl.

They did not write Lilo into the 2025 movie. They wrote any old little girl.

You should have known, from the moment she first sees Stitch and her reaction is to scream in the trailer, that THAT IS NOT LILO.

Lilo had a very specific set of characterizations. She was a character with a personality that exploded out of the screen. Every other character in the movie meets Stitch and reacts with disgust.

But not. LILO. She’s the only one to react to him like THIS:

She is literally not like anyone else. She’s doesn’t care that he’s ugly. Or weird. Or blue. Or even bat an eye when he can talk with all those shark teeth.

From Moment One, Lilo chooses Stitch. She chooses to love him. Regardless of what he can do for her. Regardless of how many times he pushes her over or rips up her house or makes her relationship with Nani harder. That is the number one thing about Lilo.

She is desperate for people to stay, but she chooses to love Stitch even though he’s a monster. And she tries to make him better. And her love succeeds in transforming him when nothing else could.

Lilo’s personality traits all mean something in the story. (I.e. she likes Elvis because she’s clinging to the past, she snaps pictures of tourists like they’re safari animals because they’re inherently people who LEAVE and she has issues with LEAVING, etc.) But the thing I think that was so obvious that the moviemakers missed for 2025 is she has to be weird. If she’s not weird, there’s no reason for her not to have friends. And if she has friends, what does she need Stitch for?

But also, Lilo’s personality in the new movie is just boring. Cute. But boring. Cute’s not that great of an accomplishment; any 7 year-old is cute.

6. Nani

I don’t think you guys need to know this. It’s not just that Nani leaves. It’s that “take care of yourself” is the exact opposite of the selfless message of the movie.

In the beginning, Lilo literally argues with Nani after being told she’s “such a pain,” and goes, “why don’t you SELL ME and buy a RABBIT INSTEAD?”

And then breaks down and cries at the thought of Nani wishing she had a rabbit instead of Lilo, later.

Because Lilo is afraid of people leaving. But Nani won’t leave her. Nani loses her job, her own life, because of Lilo. But she’s desperate to keep Lilo anyway, because she loves her. Don’t you understand? The message of the movie was about self-sacrificial love. A love that doesn't care what I get out of the relationship.

Nani starts it. But you know what, David loves her like that, too. And then Lilo transfers it to Stitch, who shows it off to Jumba. It’s a chain reaction, but Nani is spearheading it.

You realize that when their parents died, Nani already would’ve been in high school? With a whole life of her own? Her own friends, her own potential boyfriend, a job she went to, surf competitions (the trophies are in her room.) Lilo would’ve been well aware that that was the status-quo: Nani has her own life. And even a seven year-old can see that that life is being put on hold, but maybe the big sister wants to go back to it, at every turn.

The fact that Nani never does that, never expresses a desire for that, only ever expresses a desire to keep Lilo with her, is huge. It’s the core of the movie.

I don’t think that needs any more explaining.

We could talk more. Like about how Lilo needs to see that Stitch is an alien, because that’s the ultimate test: he’s one of the monsters who destroyed her house, he’s been lying to her and using her as a human shield, he’s a criminal—but she still winds up giving everything up to protect him.

Anyway. My neck hurts and I don’t want to type anymore. But we could talk about the music, the social worker, the grand councilwoman—it just doesn’t matter.

Ya’ll had more than enough details in the trailer to be able to not go see this movie because it was obviously going to ruin everything. But instead you chose to make this twisted corpse “the highest-grossing movie of any Memorial Day.” You bought tickets because they ruined a perfect movie and slapped together an uglier package for you.

Whatever. It was my favorite movie today, it’ll be your Treasure Planet or Tangled tomorrow. Keep riiiight on giving them your money, and keep letting influencers regurgitate the same four obvious facts to you over and over, because they paid Disney to make a talking-point for their content benefit. Whatever.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Do they just kick you out of Disney if you know how to write these days?

I was never going to touch this movie and I'm horrified.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Let's Watch Libertarian Propaganda for Children for Some Reason

Hey everybody, look, it’s the Tuttle Twins!

Yeah, there they are. Zooping around on their time machine.

The Tuttle Twins is a streaming show from Angel Studios, the independent studio behind Sound of Freedom and various Christian and Christian-Adjacent movies. They’ve got some movie about Jesus out right now.

No, you can’t- The Buddy Christ thing isn’t- You don’t- 

Anyway, although I first heard about this cartoon from a youtube channel called “Fundie Fridays” The Tuttle Twins isn’t a Christian propaganda cartoon, it’s a Libertarian propaganda cartoon.

One that teaches kids how to buy Bitcoin!

After watching just the episode about Bitcoin, I wanted to watch and talk about some more episodes. And I sketched out a bit of an intro explaining what Libertarianism is in the minds of the people who created this show, but then I had a second thought.

“Am I just describing a straw-man libertarianism? Am I just paraphrasing these ideas in a way that I find easy to refute? Have I become the very Tuttle Twins I was trying to defeat?"

And then I watched the very first episode and their description of what they believe is pretty much word for word how I was going to explain it.

And hey, they put that episode up on youtube, we can watch it together!

(You can also watch season 1 and 2 and most of 3 for free on their slightly wonky app or web site, but there are a few full episodes on youtube as well)

Or you could skip it and read my amazing summary below!

Anyway, after a brief cold open that sees the twins hurtling through dimensions, and a pretty cute gag we cut to our entrepreneurial twins selling lemonade. The science-minded Emily is using it fund a trip to science camp, and Ethan is using it to fund his purchase of an enormous gummy bear. 

Until, that is, they are confronted by Karinne.

Likes: Fiat Currency, Communism, sweater vests. Dislikes: Freedom

I gotta be honest, I don’t totally get Karinne, she’s kind of a foil or frenemy for the main characters, and she comes off kind of preppy coded, sort of the snobbish rich kid used to getting what she wants, but y’all are libertarians, you shouldn’t be shaming her for the fact that her parents are Randian producers. 

Honestly I am eternally fascinated by kids show characters whose job is to be constantly wrong, but after watching a few episodes I don’t really have a clear read on her. Sometimes she tags along on an adventure and acts as an ideological foil for the kids, but so far I've seen her argue for fiat currency, religious intolerance, the NSA, and using the power of the president for self-enrichment. So... Uh... Not the raging communist I was lead to expect, put it that way.

Also there is a running joke for the first season where people keep pronouncing her name “Karen” and I don’t know if the joke is she’s supposed to be kind of a Karen in the slang sense? But honestly when I picture the kind of mother who would show this show to her kids… People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, that’s all I’m saying.

Anyway, it turns out Karinne is the president of the “Cul-de-sac Kids Club” and last night she held a meeting to amend the laws of the kids club to allow the president to have as much lemonade as she wants, so she has some lackeys just cart away all of the lemonade, leaving our heroes without a way to earn money in the glorious American free market economy, what with the means of production having been confiscated and all.

The good news, though, is that Grandma is moving in! Along with her pet, and very specifically not tame raccoon Derek, who was banned from her previous dwelling by the HOA because, quote, “HOAs are full of communists”. Someone should put that on a shirt and sell plush toys of that raccoon.

I do enjoy the fact that her first impulse on hearing that Karinne is going to confiscate the lemonade is to slingshot a bar of soap at her head:

Don’t worry, she doesn’t actually assault a child.

Anyway, that night as the twins are lamenting the loss of they hear the noise of an acetylene welding torch coming from their grandmother’s room.

It turns out she made her mobility scooter into a gadget-laden time machine, so our show has a premise now. Huzzah!

After a series of actually pretty good gags, the kids end up in France, 1848 to meet with Frédéric Bastiat, who I was not previously aware of but who appears to be one of the founding figures of modern libertarian ideology.

Apparently American politics these days are all your fault you french son of a gun. Also wow they drew your hand wrong in this frame.

And he describes what I was going to describe about the libertarian moral foundations of this show.

“My book is about the idea that laws should protect our God-given rights or ‘Natural rights’. Having rights means there are some things you can do, and nobody is allowed to stop you!”

Specifically, rights to life, to liberty (Meaning the right to do what we want so long as it doesn’t take away another person’s rights) and to own property.

And to be clear, and this is explained later in the episode, these are very negative rights. The role of the government is not to ensure that you have any specific amount of property, liberty or life. Rather, you have to gather as much as you are able by your own lights, and the government’s sole role is to prevent other people from taking whatever property you have or abrogating your liberties or killing you.

Does that mean that taxation for the public good is the same as theft?

You betcha, which is what we learn in the next part of the show. A part which is largely so boring that I can't be bothered to screencap it.

The time machine runs out of “Knowledge Juice” and strands them in an Old West Town. Knowledge Juice is the fuel for the time machine, it’s a green goo that goes down when they travel through time, and up when they explain that they’ve learned something. And it’s a plot device that I think they eventually get rid of just because it gets kind of redundant.

Actually I’ll just sort of go over the formula of the show. 

The kids have some more or less relatable real world problem;

Grandma takes them back in time to meet a historical figure who tells them about some libertarian principle;

On the way back the time machine runs out of knowledge juice in some fantastical situation;

The kids solve the situation using their new libertarian knowledge;

They refill the knowledge juice reserves by explaining what they learned;

They then go back home and use what they learned to solve their ordinary kid problem.

Just from a story structure perspective the part where they refill the knowledge juice is extremely redundant; It would be more elegant to just have them explain the lesson to the other kids when they solve their problem at the end of the episode. I think eventually they figured that out.

Arguably, if you really wanted to condense things you’d have the kids go on a historical adventure with the historical figure, then come back to the present and explain what they learned and apply it to their current situation, but the reason they have sections 3 and 4 is because those are usually where the crazy cartoon stuff comes in, they end up in some alternate fantasy dimension or shrunk down and fighting a worm war, or something fun like that.

Except for this pilot episode, where parts 3-5 just take place in a generic old west town. Not really starting with a bang honestly.

Basically, the Sheriff fights off two cattle rustling bandits, who then return in the guise of tax men, taking cows away from an innocent rancher to use for business subsidies and charity, which isn’t fair because the law is supposed to protect her property, and anyway the rancher gives cows to charity sometimes already.

Since taxation is theft, the kids lobby to get the laws changed, and after an amusing title card that says,

The whole town has voted to repeal the taxes and they capture the rustlers, huzzah!

Anyway, the Tuttle Twins go back home, and call an emergency meeting of the Cul-de-sac kids club to hold a vote to repeal the law that allows the President to have as much lemonade as she wants. Of course, the vote goes their way…

Which is when Karinne reveals her trump card, which is that the club by-laws allow the President a unilateral veto over any proposed amendments to the club rules.

Furthermore, she points out that the Kids Club is not a government organization, but a private one which is simply a contractual relationship that the twins entered freely. And since the government’s job is to enforce contracts and protect private property, the twins will be arrested if they try to violate the contract by taking any of Karinne’s honestly earned lemonade.

Yeah kids, that’s right. Have grandma teleport you back to talk to Murray Rothbard, he’ll explain it to you.

Okay okay I made all that up. I'll stop arguing politics with a children's cartoon.

They successfully overturn the rule but give everybody in the club a glass of lemonade on the house anyway to show there’s no hard feelings.

So, this episode is not that out there. Something I can’t get across in summary is that there are a lot of classic cartoon gags, and a lot of them land. I’ve watched a few episodes of this show now and smiled at a lot of gags and laughed out loud once or twice. As much as I don’t agree with a lot of the ideology behind it it’s not something that was tossed out there.

The animation quality of any given shot varies quite a lot, but there is some attention to the animation, visual gags and comedy timing as well as some funny writing. This isn’t a half-assed scam or complete amateur nonsense, this is clearly made by people who are trying to make something genuinely good outside of its propaganda purpose.

That said, I obviously have some issues with the show.

Honestly going in I thought my biggest problem with this show would be ideological disagreement. And don’t get me wrong, there’s some stuff in this show that I strongly disagree with, but there are quite a few episodes with perfectly fine messages. There’s an episode where they get into a prank war at science camp and eventually it starts wrecking the science projects so Ghandi teaches them about de-escalation. Rosa Parks talks about civil disobedience and how sometimes you should disobey unjust laws, but you should always be aware of the consequences beforehand and think carefully about how and when you should do it. There’s an episode where they talk about respecting different religious traditions and how the government shouldn’t mandate or prevent any religion.

I agree with all of that, even if some of that is something that kids won’t really get to put into practice much.

My big problem is that even though there are gags in the historical parts, this show suffers a problem that a lot of educational shows do, which is that it feels like it stops dead to lecture you about something and you have to just sit through that until the fun bits start up again. The historical figures tend to be heavily simplified in a way that some people might object to, but I think the bigger issue is that this simplification makes their stories less compelling.

You’re not so much living through a recreation of the exciting things the historical figures did so much as listening to them talk about what they did. It’s a real “tell, don’t show” approach that makes about a third of every episode really kind of dull unless it’s one of the episodes where what they’re telling you is batshit crazy.

So if you’re going to watch it for camp value, I really don’t recommend starting with the first episode or trying to watch it in order, I’d just scan the episode summaries and watch one that sounds crazy to you. There are at least two that try to sell Bitcoin to children. There’s a few genuinely bananas episodes and ideas to gawk at if you’re into that kind of thing like I am, but there’s a lot of fairly bland episodes.

And talking about how viewers will view the show…

I have had to accept in my heart that I have no idea who this show is made for.

It has a lot of parallels to American Christian pop culture programs, but like, okay, so right-wing American Christians have built this entire parallel media ecosystem because they’re paranoid that Hollywood secularists are going to corrupt their kids with secularism and paganism. I knew a guy once who said when he was a kid his parents made him stop watching Tiny Tunes because they saw one of the characters meditating, but that’s okay, he could still watch McGee and Me.

Now, I don’t agree with that kind of strict parental thought control, it is at least internally consistent. A lot of parts of the Bible are about devout Godly people being corrupted by worldly concerns or religious apostasy, going at least back to the worship of the Golden Calf in Exodus. And the right wing Christians who are worried about media corruption think any deviation from their theology is a threat to a person’s immortal soul.

So the impulse to shield your child from any media that even slightly questions or contradicts your own views isn’t good, but at least it’s theologically consistent and in keeping with the Bible.

Meanwhile, if you find yourself saying, “As a staunch libertarian and tireless advocate for personal freedom, I believe in strictly controlling what my children are allowed to watch or think.” Like…

You know come on and think for a second about what you’ve just said.

The kind of paranoia about controlling your children’s worldview that would make someone want to watch this really doesn’t seem to me to be in keeping with, well, uh, the actual values espoused in the show.

So I kind of don’t know how to feel about it. Personally, I would never expose a child to this on purpose unless they were old enough to ask some very critical questions about what they were hearing.

On the other hand, when I imagine the kind of person who is going to show this to their kids… I kind of almost wonder if most of the other stuff those kids are seeing is a lot worse. I can kind of imagine a very earnest child taking this stuff seriously enough to start questioning some controlling parent or religious authority.

So I really just don’t know. If anybody has any insight into the culture of the people who watch this kind of thing, I’d be really curious.

[morlock-holmes]

I wrote a very long review of the Tuttle Twins on my side blog. I can't stop talking about it.

[thathopeyetlives]

so far I've seen her argue for fiat currency, religious intolerance, the NSA, and using the power of the president for self-enrichment. So... Uh... Not the raging communist I was lead to expect, put it that way.

It's pretty normal for libertarians to have a fairly wide-ranging hostility towards what could be and often is called cronyism and social structures that basically have at their root the notion that the government should have unanswerable powers that nobody else has, or view a lot of things we call "capitalism" as being rooted in repugnant government intervention.

Now, I don’t agree with that kind of strict parental thought control, it is at least internally consistent. A lot of parts of the Bible are about devout Godly people being corrupted by worldly concerns or religious apostasy, going at least back to the worship of the Golden Calf in Exodus. And the right wing Christians who are worried about media corruption think any deviation from their theology is a threat to a person’s immortal soul. So the impulse to shield your child from any media that even slightly questions or contradicts your own views isn’t good, but at least it’s theologically consistent and in keeping with the Bible.

I'm not a Libertarian and I don't know what the Libertarians are thinking about, or indeed if they are thinking at all in this case.

But I am a right-wing Christian who wants to provide my hoped-for future children with a good and rigorous upbringing according to my worldview and the Truth, but also to not shelter them or apply "strict thought control" to them.

The thing is that the broad world of media, both children's media and general, is really seriously at odds with my worldview in pretty basic ways. Even a fairly cherrypicked selection of mainstream kids media produced in the last eighty years is going to generally encode a whole slew of cultural assumptions that I especially don't want to have be the majority position.

So having some of my own media to advance my worldview be available is strongly desirable.

I would go for a lot less didacticism.

[freebroccoli]

I'm in the library regularly to get books my kids, and it's shocking how much of what they have available is straight-up activism. Progressives are not shy at all about using whatever platforms they have to inculcate their values in children, and have the gall to pretend like it isn't still indoctrination.

Ironically, a library in New York was going to remove Tuttle Twins books because they “promote a specific political and economic perspective that clashes with the library’s policy to include all points of view.”

[thathopeyetlives]

Would be a bit interested in some examples. It'll be (God willing only) a few years until it's relevant for me and mine.

One concrete thing for me: Watching some Disney and yikes the individualist-fantasy comes on strong.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

@thathopeyetlives sure, there's plenty of stuff in children's media which goes against your world-view.

But having watched the entire first season of The Tuttle Twins, something that isn't really obvious at a casual glance is that it's really not a show that is concerned with right wing culture war stuff (Although it looks like this changes a little in later seasons) or religion, it's just Libertarianism.

And I don't think kids cartoons actually usually say much about the proper role of government or about sound money.

I did say this to a friend and she said, "But isn't that actually worse in a way?" which does kind of make sense.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Let's Watch Libertarian Propaganda for Children for Some Reason

Hey everybody, look, it’s the Tuttle Twins!

Yeah, there they are. Zooping around on their time machine.

The Tuttle Twins is a streaming show from Angel Studios, the independent studio behind Sound of Freedom and various Christian and Christian-Adjacent movies. They’ve got some movie about Jesus out right now.

No, you can’t- The Buddy Christ thing isn’t- You don’t- 

Anyway, although I first heard about this cartoon from a youtube channel called “Fundie Fridays” The Tuttle Twins isn’t a Christian propaganda cartoon, it’s a Libertarian propaganda cartoon.

One that teaches kids how to buy Bitcoin!

After watching just the episode about Bitcoin, I wanted to watch and talk about some more episodes. And I sketched out a bit of an intro explaining what Libertarianism is in the minds of the people who created this show, but then I had a second thought.

“Am I just describing a straw-man libertarianism? Am I just paraphrasing these ideas in a way that I find easy to refute? Have I become the very Tuttle Twins I was trying to defeat?"

And then I watched the very first episode and their description of what they believe is pretty much word for word how I was going to explain it.

And hey, they put that episode up on youtube, we can watch it together!

(You can also watch season 1 and 2 and most of 3 for free on their slightly wonky app or web site, but there are a few full episodes on youtube as well)

Or you could skip it and read my amazing summary below!

Anyway, after a brief cold open that sees the twins hurtling through dimensions, and a pretty cute gag we cut to our entrepreneurial twins selling lemonade. The science-minded Emily is using it fund a trip to science camp, and Ethan is using it to fund his purchase of an enormous gummy bear. 

Until, that is, they are confronted by Karinne.

Likes: Fiat Currency, Communism, sweater vests. Dislikes: Freedom

I gotta be honest, I don’t totally get Karinne, she’s kind of a foil or frenemy for the main characters, and she comes off kind of preppy coded, sort of the snobbish rich kid used to getting what she wants, but y’all are libertarians, you shouldn’t be shaming her for the fact that her parents are Randian producers. 

Honestly I am eternally fascinated by kids show characters whose job is to be constantly wrong, but after watching a few episodes I don’t really have a clear read on her. Sometimes she tags along on an adventure and acts as an ideological foil for the kids, but so far I've seen her argue for fiat currency, religious intolerance, the NSA, and using the power of the president for self-enrichment. So... Uh... Not the raging communist I was lead to expect, put it that way.

Also there is a running joke for the first season where people keep pronouncing her name “Karen” and I don’t know if the joke is she’s supposed to be kind of a Karen in the slang sense? But honestly when I picture the kind of mother who would show this show to her kids… People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, that’s all I’m saying.

Anyway, it turns out Karinne is the president of the “Cul-de-sac Kids Club” and last night she held a meeting to amend the laws of the kids club to allow the president to have as much lemonade as she wants, so she has some lackeys just cart away all of the lemonade, leaving our heroes without a way to earn money in the glorious American free market economy, what with the means of production having been confiscated and all.

The good news, though, is that Grandma is moving in! Along with her pet, and very specifically not tame raccoon Derek, who was banned from her previous dwelling by the HOA because, quote, “HOAs are full of communists”. Someone should put that on a shirt and sell plush toys of that raccoon.

I do enjoy the fact that her first impulse on hearing that Karinne is going to confiscate the lemonade is to slingshot a bar of soap at her head:

Don’t worry, she doesn’t actually assault a child.

Anyway, that night as the twins are lamenting the loss of they hear the noise of an acetylene welding torch coming from their grandmother’s room.

It turns out she made her mobility scooter into a gadget-laden time machine, so our show has a premise now. Huzzah!

After a series of actually pretty good gags, the kids end up in France, 1848 to meet with Frédéric Bastiat, who I was not previously aware of but who appears to be one of the founding figures of modern libertarian ideology.

Apparently American politics these days are all your fault you french son of a gun. Also wow they drew your hand wrong in this frame.

And he describes what I was going to describe about the libertarian moral foundations of this show.

“My book is about the idea that laws should protect our God-given rights or ‘Natural rights’. Having rights means there are some things you can do, and nobody is allowed to stop you!”

Specifically, rights to life, to liberty (Meaning the right to do what we want so long as it doesn’t take away another person’s rights) and to own property.

And to be clear, and this is explained later in the episode, these are very negative rights. The role of the government is not to ensure that you have any specific amount of property, liberty or life. Rather, you have to gather as much as you are able by your own lights, and the government’s sole role is to prevent other people from taking whatever property you have or abrogating your liberties or killing you.

Does that mean that taxation for the public good is the same as theft?

You betcha, which is what we learn in the next part of the show. A part which is largely so boring that I can't be bothered to screencap it.

The time machine runs out of “Knowledge Juice” and strands them in an Old West Town. Knowledge Juice is the fuel for the time machine, it’s a green goo that goes down when they travel through time, and up when they explain that they’ve learned something. And it’s a plot device that I think they eventually get rid of just because it gets kind of redundant.

Actually I’ll just sort of go over the formula of the show. 

The kids have some more or less relatable real world problem;

Grandma takes them back in time to meet a historical figure who tells them about some libertarian principle;

On the way back the time machine runs out of knowledge juice in some fantastical situation;

The kids solve the situation using their new libertarian knowledge;

They refill the knowledge juice reserves by explaining what they learned;

They then go back home and use what they learned to solve their ordinary kid problem.

Just from a story structure perspective the part where they refill the knowledge juice is extremely redundant; It would be more elegant to just have them explain the lesson to the other kids when they solve their problem at the end of the episode. I think eventually they figured that out.

Arguably, if you really wanted to condense things you’d have the kids go on a historical adventure with the historical figure, then come back to the present and explain what they learned and apply it to their current situation, but the reason they have sections 3 and 4 is because those are usually where the crazy cartoon stuff comes in, they end up in some alternate fantasy dimension or shrunk down and fighting a worm war, or something fun like that.

Except for this pilot episode, where parts 3-5 just take place in a generic old west town. Not really starting with a bang honestly.

Basically, the Sheriff fights off two cattle rustling bandits, who then return in the guise of tax men, taking cows away from an innocent rancher to use for business subsidies and charity, which isn’t fair because the law is supposed to protect her property, and anyway the rancher gives cows to charity sometimes already.

Since taxation is theft, the kids lobby to get the laws changed, and after an amusing title card that says,

The whole town has voted to repeal the taxes and they capture the rustlers, huzzah!

Anyway, the Tuttle Twins go back home, and call an emergency meeting of the Cul-de-sac kids club to hold a vote to repeal the law that allows the President to have as much lemonade as she wants. Of course, the vote goes their way…

Which is when Karinne reveals her trump card, which is that the club by-laws allow the President a unilateral veto over any proposed amendments to the club rules.

Furthermore, she points out that the Kids Club is not a government organization, but a private one which is simply a contractual relationship that the twins entered freely. And since the government’s job is to enforce contracts and protect private property, the twins will be arrested if they try to violate the contract by taking any of Karinne’s honestly earned lemonade.

Yeah kids, that’s right. Have grandma teleport you back to talk to Murray Rothbard, he’ll explain it to you.

Okay okay I made all that up. I'll stop arguing politics with a children's cartoon.

They successfully overturn the rule but give everybody in the club a glass of lemonade on the house anyway to show there’s no hard feelings.

So, this episode is not that out there. Something I can’t get across in summary is that there are a lot of classic cartoon gags, and a lot of them land. I’ve watched a few episodes of this show now and smiled at a lot of gags and laughed out loud once or twice. As much as I don’t agree with a lot of the ideology behind it it’s not something that was tossed out there.

The animation quality of any given shot varies quite a lot, but there is some attention to the animation, visual gags and comedy timing as well as some funny writing. This isn’t a half-assed scam or complete amateur nonsense, this is clearly made by people who are trying to make something genuinely good outside of its propaganda purpose.

That said, I obviously have some issues with the show.

Honestly going in I thought my biggest problem with this show would be ideological disagreement. And don’t get me wrong, there’s some stuff in this show that I strongly disagree with, but there are quite a few episodes with perfectly fine messages. There’s an episode where they get into a prank war at science camp and eventually it starts wrecking the science projects so Ghandi teaches them about de-escalation. Rosa Parks talks about civil disobedience and how sometimes you should disobey unjust laws, but you should always be aware of the consequences beforehand and think carefully about how and when you should do it. There’s an episode where they talk about respecting different religious traditions and how the government shouldn’t mandate or prevent any religion.

I agree with all of that, even if some of that is something that kids won’t really get to put into practice much.

My big problem is that even though there are gags in the historical parts, this show suffers a problem that a lot of educational shows do, which is that it feels like it stops dead to lecture you about something and you have to just sit through that until the fun bits start up again. The historical figures tend to be heavily simplified in a way that some people might object to, but I think the bigger issue is that this simplification makes their stories less compelling.

You’re not so much living through a recreation of the exciting things the historical figures did so much as listening to them talk about what they did. It’s a real “tell, don’t show” approach that makes about a third of every episode really kind of dull unless it’s one of the episodes where what they’re telling you is batshit crazy.

So if you’re going to watch it for camp value, I really don’t recommend starting with the first episode or trying to watch it in order, I’d just scan the episode summaries and watch one that sounds crazy to you. There are at least two that try to sell Bitcoin to children. There’s a few genuinely bananas episodes and ideas to gawk at if you’re into that kind of thing like I am, but there’s a lot of fairly bland episodes.

And talking about how viewers will view the show…

I have had to accept in my heart that I have no idea who this show is made for.

It has a lot of parallels to American Christian pop culture programs, but like, okay, so right-wing American Christians have built this entire parallel media ecosystem because they’re paranoid that Hollywood secularists are going to corrupt their kids with secularism and paganism. I knew a guy once who said when he was a kid his parents made him stop watching Tiny Tunes because they saw one of the characters meditating, but that’s okay, he could still watch McGee and Me.

Now, I don’t agree with that kind of strict parental thought control, it is at least internally consistent. A lot of parts of the Bible are about devout Godly people being corrupted by worldly concerns or religious apostasy, going at least back to the worship of the Golden Calf in Exodus. And the right wing Christians who are worried about media corruption think any deviation from their theology is a threat to a person’s immortal soul.

So the impulse to shield your child from any media that even slightly questions or contradicts your own views isn’t good, but at least it’s theologically consistent and in keeping with the Bible.

Meanwhile, if you find yourself saying, “As a staunch libertarian and tireless advocate for personal freedom, I believe in strictly controlling what my children are allowed to watch or think.” Like…

You know come on and think for a second about what you’ve just said.

The kind of paranoia about controlling your children’s worldview that would make someone want to watch this really doesn’t seem to me to be in keeping with, well, uh, the actual values espoused in the show.

So I kind of don’t know how to feel about it. Personally, I would never expose a child to this on purpose unless they were old enough to ask some very critical questions about what they were hearing.

On the other hand, when I imagine the kind of person who is going to show this to their kids… I kind of almost wonder if most of the other stuff those kids are seeing is a lot worse. I can kind of imagine a very earnest child taking this stuff seriously enough to start questioning some controlling parent or religious authority.

So I really just don’t know. If anybody has any insight into the culture of the people who watch this kind of thing, I’d be really curious.

[throwsahammer]

Ah, Angel Studios. Where to begin? Wikipedia says 2014 was the public launch of VidAngel, which was these (mormon) guys' initial business venture. Basically, you could buy a DVD copy of a movie or TV show that had a series of customizable censorship filters (profanity, nudity, violence, etc.) applied to it for $20, and then you could either keep it or sell it back within 24 hours for $19. Naturally, they got sued into bankruptcy in 2016 by a coalition of major studios (they claimed fair use, because since you had to enable at least one filter on any of "their" content, it counted as transformative.) They mostly operated as a local alternative to Netflix in Utah during this initial run. Their public perception among fellow Mormons was mostly positive, as most saw them as performing an invaluable service by enabling faithful latter-day saints to watch popular media without needing to hear any cussing. A few saw them as con-artists who were running a massive piracy operation and tempting otherwise righteous church members into engaging with worldly media by offering "clean" versions that were still haunted by the conspicuous absence of the removed elements.

During and after the lawsuit, VidAngel started diversifying their offerings. Dry Bar, their live standup show, offered a profanity and innuendo-free alternative to popular comedians. They offered their filter technology as a standalone subscription service that could be applied to other streaming platforms (though, hilariously, not the ones belonging to the studios suing them), and they split Angel Studios into its own label so that they wouldn't lose any of their original content (basically just the Dry Bar stuff at this point) to the looming bankruptcy. They then started building a library of predominantly faith-based films and local vanity projects and eventually branched out into true original content. And now we're roughly caught up to the present.

So, first of all, why does Tuttle Twins exist? Well, the simple answer is that Bluey fucking exploded into a multi-billion dollar intellectual property, and now everyone and their dog (heh) is trying to make the next one. The more complicated answer is that it's because Tuttle Twins already existed. The Tuttle Twins book series is written by a local (also mormon) guy from Lehi, and every book is an attempt to introduce kids to foundational and contemporary libertarian and conservative texts. A child-friendly version of 12 Rules for Life is there, alongside Leviathan and Atlas Shrugged. I haven't read them, but I'm really hoping that Karl Marx gets to be their time-traveling nemesis, and they have to go back in time to prevent him from unionizing the ancient Egyptians so that the pyramids still get built or something.

Anyway, a preexisting book series for anxious parents who want to combat "woke indoctrination" or whatever is perfect for adapting into an animated series. Utah also has a surprisingly robust animation industry

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

THEY WERE THE VIDANGEL PEOPLE THIS WHOLE TIME????

Holy cow that's another pushpin and yarn for the ol' corkboard.

I think what I am finding culturally hard to process is that, uh, I feel like I don't run across a lot of counter-libertarian propaganda for children?

I just finished an episode where Karinne wants to bribe the other kids into voting for her for kids club president, and her uncle owns a carnival so she starts printing free prize tickets for them, but this means her uncle isn't getting enough money from the carnival games to cover the cost of the prizes so he demands more tickets per prize to compensate.

And that's... You know that's fine and all as a simple primer on inflation but like... Why though.

Like I didn't watch the last season of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic but I don't remember any episodes addressing the necessity of removing bits from... What would it be in Equestria, the oats standard?

That's terrible. I am not good at puns.

Anyway to my knowledge Twilight Sparkle never wrote any letters about the way gentle inflation stimulates the economy by encouraging spending and loans and the importance of fiat currency to the modern economy.

Who are you rebelling against, Tuttle Twins?

PS - I know from key art and episode descriptions that eventually they do get into some culture war stuff and that Karl Marx is in there somewhere but mostly the ideological opponents in the first six episodes are political cronyism preventing new people from entering the market and fiat currency. Honestly like American left-wing anticapitalism doesn't really exist in the show yet.

PPS - I have thought about getting the books from the local library but everything I've seen indicates that everything that makes the show, like, any fun at all (The time travelling grandma, the recurring foil for the kids, the funny animal mascot, the interdimensional adventures) were all added when it was developed for television and the books just sound really dry.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Let's Watch a Truly Bananas Libertarian Informercial

@freebroccoli asked, “Other ideologies create children's media to propagate their views, so why shouldn't we?”

And after thinking about it a bit the answer I came up with is, “Because those are badly made so you shouldn’t copy them.”

My longer thoughts pertain to this Tuttle Twins minisode/infomercial which has shown me an entire world that I had no idea existed. I know I said you can kind of skip the first episode but I need you all to watch this one because somebody needs to explain it to me.

Hey, so, uh, what the heck?

Okay, well, so, for context there’s at least one episode (The civil disobedience one) where the twins shoot a movie starring their Grandma’s pet Raccoon, as “Dark Dumpster Derek” which is his superhero name.

Honestly I kind of don’t get it as a superhero name. 

You can get him as a plushie or a poster based on that episode.

And also I think if you watched this (And if you have YES I KNOW I will get there eventually)  you’ve seen, like, half of the Dark Dumpster Derek stuff. Like even the actual episode about this that isn’t an infomercial still really doesn’t have a lot of him in the costume. If I put on my writer’s hat and look at that poster, I imagine a subplot where, through some shenanigans, maybe he gets mistaken for a real superhero or maybe he just is a real superhero when the twins aren’t around and he and Karinne get in some wacky adventure white the Tuttles are out talking to Friedrich Hayek or who the hell ever.

But there’s no time for stuff like that because we need to spend half of every episode for historical lectures!

This show spends so much time on dry educational (or “educational”) lectures that it noticeably takes time away from the fun parts of the cartoon. When it comes to kids shows, you’re always selling partly to the kids, and partly to the parents, but the ratio of who you are selling to more changes from show to show. And this show is selling hard to the parents.

And here’s the thing: I have no idea why parents would care what their kids think about the gold standard.

And yes, this particular bit is an ad but believe me, there are multiple episodes of the show that deal with sound money (You Mormon homeschoolers should probably not let your kids google “The Inflation Monster”).

And I truly don’t know why. It’s not so much “Why would people advocate for a return to the gold standard?” as “Why would people want a cartoon show to teach their kids about the wisdom of the gold standard?”

I mean, I’m pretty worried about Trump’s tariffs but it has not occurred to me to discuss the dangers they pose to free trade with my six year old niece.

I especially don’t understand why you’d sell this bonkers product through a children’s cartoon.

I’ll just say it: sort of seems like you’re just not very good at buying presents. Maybe next time bring the kids some ninja turtles and see how those compare.

Okay, I am amazed by this bizarre product. 

One thing that drives me just as crazy about this as with bitcoin is that if you have a currency whose overall direction is deflationary but whose specific value swings wildly from day to day, and that’s paired with a currency that is overall subject to inflation but maintains a fairly steady value day to day (i.e. the dollar), then the incentives are going to be to treat the deflationary currency more like an asset, and when you need to buy things you won’t buy them directly with the deflationary currency, you’ll sell a bit of the deflationary currency for dollars. A goldback is going to be worth more in six months; a dollar a little less, so you never spend a goldback if you can spend a dollar instead. And since everybody is paid in dollars, you can always spend a dollar.

On the merchant side, it’s really hard to price things in a currency that fluctuates wildly in value. A single Goldback today is worth 34 cents more than it was worth a week ago. A goldback a week ago was worth 14 cents less than it was a week before that.

All of this is why your local 7/11 doesn’t take payment in Tesla stock, it is so weird to me how people just never seem to even bring this up in alternative currency circles.

Also, I don’t really understand how the gold standard works, it seems like for most people gold is only valuable because of the social agreement that it is valuable, but also, like… Maybe I’m just dumb but isn’t part of the point of a gold coin is that if you wanted you could just, like, melt it down and make it into jewelry? If these only have a tiny amount of gold can you, like, even get it back, and if you can’t is that in practice any different than fiat currency?

People on some subreddits have also pointed out that there is a manufacture cost to make these on top of the price of buying the gold to put in them, and that how this is priced in is not very transparent. Also the redditors keep mentioning “Stacking” a lot which is making my “Tulip Mania Alarm” go off at full volume.

But I think what I am most taken with here is that, like, all the bills for like, Utah and most of the states have these very old-fashioned 19th century looking designs with all kinds of symbolism and little animals and fillagrees like so:

But then the ones for Florida, and only the ones for Florida Are just, like

Sexy AI Pirate

Sexy AI Fighter Pilot

Sexy AI Statue of Liberty pulling a cruise ship (???)

I don’t know if they were just like, “Eh, clearly nobody in Florida has any taste just do whatever” or if this is the sign of a company that is rapidly running out of money to pay new artists.

Anyway. What is any of this? Seriously, please explain this to me.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Let's Watch Libertarian Propaganda for Children for Some Reason

Hey everybody, look, it’s the Tuttle Twins!

Yeah, there they are. Zooping around on their time machine.

The Tuttle Twins is a streaming show from Angel Studios, the independent studio behind Sound of Freedom and various Christian and Christian-Adjacent movies. They’ve got some movie about Jesus out right now.

No, you can’t- The Buddy Christ thing isn’t- You don’t- 

Anyway, although I first heard about this cartoon from a youtube channel called “Fundie Fridays” The Tuttle Twins isn’t a Christian propaganda cartoon, it’s a Libertarian propaganda cartoon.

One that teaches kids how to buy Bitcoin!

After watching just the episode about Bitcoin, I wanted to watch and talk about some more episodes. And I sketched out a bit of an intro explaining what Libertarianism is in the minds of the people who created this show, but then I had a second thought.

“Am I just describing a straw-man libertarianism? Am I just paraphrasing these ideas in a way that I find easy to refute? Have I become the very Tuttle Twins I was trying to defeat?"

And then I watched the very first episode and their description of what they believe is pretty much word for word how I was going to explain it.

And hey, they put that episode up on youtube, we can watch it together!

(You can also watch season 1 and 2 and most of 3 for free on their slightly wonky app or web site, but there are a few full episodes on youtube as well)

Or you could skip it and read my amazing summary below!

Anyway, after a brief cold open that sees the twins hurtling through dimensions, and a pretty cute gag we cut to our entrepreneurial twins selling lemonade. The science-minded Emily is using it fund a trip to science camp, and Ethan is using it to fund his purchase of an enormous gummy bear. 

Until, that is, they are confronted by Karinne.

Likes: Fiat Currency, Communism, sweater vests. Dislikes: Freedom

I gotta be honest, I don’t totally get Karinne, she’s kind of a foil or frenemy for the main characters, and she comes off kind of preppy coded, sort of the snobbish rich kid used to getting what she wants, but y’all are libertarians, you shouldn’t be shaming her for the fact that her parents are Randian producers. 

Honestly I am eternally fascinated by kids show characters whose job is to be constantly wrong, but after watching a few episodes I don’t really have a clear read on her. Sometimes she tags along on an adventure and acts as an ideological foil for the kids, but so far I've seen her argue for fiat currency, religious intolerance, the NSA, and using the power of the president for self-enrichment. So... Uh... Not the raging communist I was lead to expect, put it that way.

Also there is a running joke for the first season where people keep pronouncing her name “Karen” and I don’t know if the joke is she’s supposed to be kind of a Karen in the slang sense? But honestly when I picture the kind of mother who would show this show to her kids… People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, that’s all I’m saying.

Anyway, it turns out Karinne is the president of the “Cul-de-sac Kids Club” and last night she held a meeting to amend the laws of the kids club to allow the president to have as much lemonade as she wants, so she has some lackeys just cart away all of the lemonade, leaving our heroes without a way to earn money in the glorious American free market economy, what with the means of production having been confiscated and all.

The good news, though, is that Grandma is moving in! Along with her pet, and very specifically not tame raccoon Derek, who was banned from her previous dwelling by the HOA because, quote, “HOAs are full of communists”. Someone should put that on a shirt and sell plush toys of that raccoon.

I do enjoy the fact that her first impulse on hearing that Karinne is going to confiscate the lemonade is to slingshot a bar of soap at her head:

Don’t worry, she doesn’t actually assault a child.

Anyway, that night as the twins are lamenting the loss of they hear the noise of an acetylene welding torch coming from their grandmother’s room.

It turns out she made her mobility scooter into a gadget-laden time machine, so our show has a premise now. Huzzah!

After a series of actually pretty good gags, the kids end up in France, 1848 to meet with Frédéric Bastiat, who I was not previously aware of but who appears to be one of the founding figures of modern libertarian ideology.

Apparently American politics these days are all your fault you french son of a gun. Also wow they drew your hand wrong in this frame.

And he describes what I was going to describe about the libertarian moral foundations of this show.

“My book is about the idea that laws should protect our God-given rights or ‘Natural rights’. Having rights means there are some things you can do, and nobody is allowed to stop you!”

Specifically, rights to life, to liberty (Meaning the right to do what we want so long as it doesn’t take away another person’s rights) and to own property.

And to be clear, and this is explained later in the episode, these are very negative rights. The role of the government is not to ensure that you have any specific amount of property, liberty or life. Rather, you have to gather as much as you are able by your own lights, and the government’s sole role is to prevent other people from taking whatever property you have or abrogating your liberties or killing you.

Does that mean that taxation for the public good is the same as theft?

You betcha, which is what we learn in the next part of the show. A part which is largely so boring that I can't be bothered to screencap it.

The time machine runs out of “Knowledge Juice” and strands them in an Old West Town. Knowledge Juice is the fuel for the time machine, it’s a green goo that goes down when they travel through time, and up when they explain that they’ve learned something. And it’s a plot device that I think they eventually get rid of just because it gets kind of redundant.

Actually I’ll just sort of go over the formula of the show. 

The kids have some more or less relatable real world problem;

Grandma takes them back in time to meet a historical figure who tells them about some libertarian principle;

On the way back the time machine runs out of knowledge juice in some fantastical situation;

The kids solve the situation using their new libertarian knowledge;

They refill the knowledge juice reserves by explaining what they learned;

They then go back home and use what they learned to solve their ordinary kid problem.

Just from a story structure perspective the part where they refill the knowledge juice is extremely redundant; It would be more elegant to just have them explain the lesson to the other kids when they solve their problem at the end of the episode. I think eventually they figured that out.

Arguably, if you really wanted to condense things you’d have the kids go on a historical adventure with the historical figure, then come back to the present and explain what they learned and apply it to their current situation, but the reason they have sections 3 and 4 is because those are usually where the crazy cartoon stuff comes in, they end up in some alternate fantasy dimension or shrunk down and fighting a worm war, or something fun like that.

Except for this pilot episode, where parts 3-5 just take place in a generic old west town. Not really starting with a bang honestly.

Basically, the Sheriff fights off two cattle rustling bandits, who then return in the guise of tax men, taking cows away from an innocent rancher to use for business subsidies and charity, which isn’t fair because the law is supposed to protect her property, and anyway the rancher gives cows to charity sometimes already.

Since taxation is theft, the kids lobby to get the laws changed, and after an amusing title card that says,

The whole town has voted to repeal the taxes and they capture the rustlers, huzzah!

Anyway, the Tuttle Twins go back home, and call an emergency meeting of the Cul-de-sac kids club to hold a vote to repeal the law that allows the President to have as much lemonade as she wants. Of course, the vote goes their way…

Which is when Karinne reveals her trump card, which is that the club by-laws allow the President a unilateral veto over any proposed amendments to the club rules.

Furthermore, she points out that the Kids Club is not a government organization, but a private one which is simply a contractual relationship that the twins entered freely. And since the government’s job is to enforce contracts and protect private property, the twins will be arrested if they try to violate the contract by taking any of Karinne’s honestly earned lemonade.

Yeah kids, that’s right. Have grandma teleport you back to talk to Murray Rothbard, he’ll explain it to you.

Okay okay I made all that up. I'll stop arguing politics with a children's cartoon.

They successfully overturn the rule but give everybody in the club a glass of lemonade on the house anyway to show there’s no hard feelings.

So, this episode is not that out there. Something I can’t get across in summary is that there are a lot of classic cartoon gags, and a lot of them land. I’ve watched a few episodes of this show now and smiled at a lot of gags and laughed out loud once or twice. As much as I don’t agree with a lot of the ideology behind it it’s not something that was tossed out there.

The animation quality of any given shot varies quite a lot, but there is some attention to the animation, visual gags and comedy timing as well as some funny writing. This isn’t a half-assed scam or complete amateur nonsense, this is clearly made by people who are trying to make something genuinely good outside of its propaganda purpose.

That said, I obviously have some issues with the show.

Honestly going in I thought my biggest problem with this show would be ideological disagreement. And don’t get me wrong, there’s some stuff in this show that I strongly disagree with, but there are quite a few episodes with perfectly fine messages. There’s an episode where they get into a prank war at science camp and eventually it starts wrecking the science projects so Ghandi teaches them about de-escalation. Rosa Parks talks about civil disobedience and how sometimes you should disobey unjust laws, but you should always be aware of the consequences beforehand and think carefully about how and when you should do it. There’s an episode where they talk about respecting different religious traditions and how the government shouldn’t mandate or prevent any religion.

I agree with all of that, even if some of that is something that kids won’t really get to put into practice much.

My big problem is that even though there are gags in the historical parts, this show suffers a problem that a lot of educational shows do, which is that it feels like it stops dead to lecture you about something and you have to just sit through that until the fun bits start up again. The historical figures tend to be heavily simplified in a way that some people might object to, but I think the bigger issue is that this simplification makes their stories less compelling.

You’re not so much living through a recreation of the exciting things the historical figures did so much as listening to them talk about what they did. It’s a real “tell, don’t show” approach that makes about a third of every episode really kind of dull unless it’s one of the episodes where what they’re telling you is batshit crazy.

So if you’re going to watch it for camp value, I really don’t recommend starting with the first episode or trying to watch it in order, I’d just scan the episode summaries and watch one that sounds crazy to you. There are at least two that try to sell Bitcoin to children. There’s a few genuinely bananas episodes and ideas to gawk at if you’re into that kind of thing like I am, but there’s a lot of fairly bland episodes.

And talking about how viewers will view the show…

I have had to accept in my heart that I have no idea who this show is made for.

It has a lot of parallels to American Christian pop culture programs, but like, okay, so right-wing American Christians have built this entire parallel media ecosystem because they’re paranoid that Hollywood secularists are going to corrupt their kids with secularism and paganism. I knew a guy once who said when he was a kid his parents made him stop watching Tiny Tunes because they saw one of the characters meditating, but that’s okay, he could still watch McGee and Me.

Now, I don’t agree with that kind of strict parental thought control, it is at least internally consistent. A lot of parts of the Bible are about devout Godly people being corrupted by worldly concerns or religious apostasy, going at least back to the worship of the Golden Calf in Exodus. And the right wing Christians who are worried about media corruption think any deviation from their theology is a threat to a person’s immortal soul.

So the impulse to shield your child from any media that even slightly questions or contradicts your own views isn’t good, but at least it’s theologically consistent and in keeping with the Bible.

Meanwhile, if you find yourself saying, “As a staunch libertarian and tireless advocate for personal freedom, I believe in strictly controlling what my children are allowed to watch or think.” Like…

You know come on and think for a second about what you’ve just said.

The kind of paranoia about controlling your children’s worldview that would make someone want to watch this really doesn’t seem to me to be in keeping with, well, uh, the actual values espoused in the show.

So I kind of don’t know how to feel about it. Personally, I would never expose a child to this on purpose unless they were old enough to ask some very critical questions about what they were hearing.

On the other hand, when I imagine the kind of person who is going to show this to their kids… I kind of almost wonder if most of the other stuff those kids are seeing is a lot worse. I can kind of imagine a very earnest child taking this stuff seriously enough to start questioning some controlling parent or religious authority.

So I really just don’t know. If anybody has any insight into the culture of the people who watch this kind of thing, I’d be really curious.

[morlock-holmes]

I wrote a very long review of the Tuttle Twins on my side blog. I can't stop talking about it.

[freebroccoli]

The idea that libertarians should be on the side of preppy kids because she represents Randian producers doesn't match how libertarians see the world at all. Even in Atlas Shrugged, the wealthy were overwhelmingly villainous. Based on how you describe her depiction, she's supposed to represent the managerial class, which are among the bad guys in the libertarian view.

I don't understand why you think the purpose of these is to create a parallel media ecosystem to what kids are being exposed to, especially since you acknowledge that doesn't really make sense; I think you are just falsely pattern-matching to Christian media. Other ideologies create children's media to propagate their views, so why shouldn't we?

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

I don't understand why you think the purpose of these is to create a parallel media ecosystem

That's a very fair question, which I suppose I didn't really get into very clearly in the review. I have a lot of thoughts that I haven't quite put in order, but as exhibit A, here's how they advertise the book series the cartoon is based on:

So... It's not nothing, this vibe I'm picking up.

[throwsahammer]

I'm writing a much longer post that goes more into the history of Angel Studios, but I'm at work now, so here's a short version to answer this a little:

Angel is not attempting to create a parallel media ecosystem; it is trying to integrate itself into the extant parallel media ecosystem. Angel is in direct competition with Pureflix, BYUtv, PragerU Kids, The Daily Wire, and Living Scriptures for subscriptions. They are using anti-woke messaging to signal their acceptability to a conservative audience, but they are substantially relying on more sectarian messaging (both religious and political) to carve out their particular market niche: They aren't just conservative; they're libertarian. They aren't just Christian; they're mormon (but, like, the cool new mormons who we promise are just like normal Christians). The only bit that you're really missing from your analysis is the extremely specific brand of Utah County brainrot that nobody outside of the state is very familiar with.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

There's a Brigham Young University streaming service????

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Let's Watch Libertarian Propaganda for Children for Some Reason

Hey everybody, look, it’s the Tuttle Twins!

Yeah, there they are. Zooping around on their time machine.

The Tuttle Twins is a streaming show from Angel Studios, the independent studio behind Sound of Freedom and various Christian and Christian-Adjacent movies. They’ve got some movie about Jesus out right now.

No, you can’t- The Buddy Christ thing isn’t- You don’t- 

Anyway, although I first heard about this cartoon from a youtube channel called “Fundie Fridays” The Tuttle Twins isn’t a Christian propaganda cartoon, it’s a Libertarian propaganda cartoon.

One that teaches kids how to buy Bitcoin!

After watching just the episode about Bitcoin, I wanted to watch and talk about some more episodes. And I sketched out a bit of an intro explaining what Libertarianism is in the minds of the people who created this show, but then I had a second thought.

“Am I just describing a straw-man libertarianism? Am I just paraphrasing these ideas in a way that I find easy to refute? Have I become the very Tuttle Twins I was trying to defeat?"

And then I watched the very first episode and their description of what they believe is pretty much word for word how I was going to explain it.

And hey, they put that episode up on youtube, we can watch it together!

(You can also watch season 1 and 2 and most of 3 for free on their slightly wonky app or web site, but there are a few full episodes on youtube as well)

Or you could skip it and read my amazing summary below!

Anyway, after a brief cold open that sees the twins hurtling through dimensions, and a pretty cute gag we cut to our entrepreneurial twins selling lemonade. The science-minded Emily is using it fund a trip to science camp, and Ethan is using it to fund his purchase of an enormous gummy bear. 

Until, that is, they are confronted by Karinne.

Likes: Fiat Currency, Communism, sweater vests. Dislikes: Freedom

I gotta be honest, I don’t totally get Karinne, she’s kind of a foil or frenemy for the main characters, and she comes off kind of preppy coded, sort of the snobbish rich kid used to getting what she wants, but y’all are libertarians, you shouldn’t be shaming her for the fact that her parents are Randian producers. 

Honestly I am eternally fascinated by kids show characters whose job is to be constantly wrong, but after watching a few episodes I don’t really have a clear read on her. Sometimes she tags along on an adventure and acts as an ideological foil for the kids, but so far I've seen her argue for fiat currency, religious intolerance, the NSA, and using the power of the president for self-enrichment. So... Uh... Not the raging communist I was lead to expect, put it that way.

Also there is a running joke for the first season where people keep pronouncing her name “Karen” and I don’t know if the joke is she’s supposed to be kind of a Karen in the slang sense? But honestly when I picture the kind of mother who would show this show to her kids… People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, that’s all I’m saying.

Anyway, it turns out Karinne is the president of the “Cul-de-sac Kids Club” and last night she held a meeting to amend the laws of the kids club to allow the president to have as much lemonade as she wants, so she has some lackeys just cart away all of the lemonade, leaving our heroes without a way to earn money in the glorious American free market economy, what with the means of production having been confiscated and all.

The good news, though, is that Grandma is moving in! Along with her pet, and very specifically not tame raccoon Derek, who was banned from her previous dwelling by the HOA because, quote, “HOAs are full of communists”. Someone should put that on a shirt and sell plush toys of that raccoon.

I do enjoy the fact that her first impulse on hearing that Karinne is going to confiscate the lemonade is to slingshot a bar of soap at her head:

Don’t worry, she doesn’t actually assault a child.

Anyway, that night as the twins are lamenting the loss of they hear the noise of an acetylene welding torch coming from their grandmother’s room.

It turns out she made her mobility scooter into a gadget-laden time machine, so our show has a premise now. Huzzah!

After a series of actually pretty good gags, the kids end up in France, 1848 to meet with Frédéric Bastiat, who I was not previously aware of but who appears to be one of the founding figures of modern libertarian ideology.

Apparently American politics these days are all your fault you french son of a gun. Also wow they drew your hand wrong in this frame.

And he describes what I was going to describe about the libertarian moral foundations of this show.

“My book is about the idea that laws should protect our God-given rights or ‘Natural rights’. Having rights means there are some things you can do, and nobody is allowed to stop you!”

Specifically, rights to life, to liberty (Meaning the right to do what we want so long as it doesn’t take away another person’s rights) and to own property.

And to be clear, and this is explained later in the episode, these are very negative rights. The role of the government is not to ensure that you have any specific amount of property, liberty or life. Rather, you have to gather as much as you are able by your own lights, and the government’s sole role is to prevent other people from taking whatever property you have or abrogating your liberties or killing you.

Does that mean that taxation for the public good is the same as theft?

You betcha, which is what we learn in the next part of the show. A part which is largely so boring that I can't be bothered to screencap it.

The time machine runs out of “Knowledge Juice” and strands them in an Old West Town. Knowledge Juice is the fuel for the time machine, it’s a green goo that goes down when they travel through time, and up when they explain that they’ve learned something. And it’s a plot device that I think they eventually get rid of just because it gets kind of redundant.

Actually I’ll just sort of go over the formula of the show. 

The kids have some more or less relatable real world problem;

Grandma takes them back in time to meet a historical figure who tells them about some libertarian principle;

On the way back the time machine runs out of knowledge juice in some fantastical situation;

The kids solve the situation using their new libertarian knowledge;

They refill the knowledge juice reserves by explaining what they learned;

They then go back home and use what they learned to solve their ordinary kid problem.

Just from a story structure perspective the part where they refill the knowledge juice is extremely redundant; It would be more elegant to just have them explain the lesson to the other kids when they solve their problem at the end of the episode. I think eventually they figured that out.

Arguably, if you really wanted to condense things you’d have the kids go on a historical adventure with the historical figure, then come back to the present and explain what they learned and apply it to their current situation, but the reason they have sections 3 and 4 is because those are usually where the crazy cartoon stuff comes in, they end up in some alternate fantasy dimension or shrunk down and fighting a worm war, or something fun like that.

Except for this pilot episode, where parts 3-5 just take place in a generic old west town. Not really starting with a bang honestly.

Basically, the Sheriff fights off two cattle rustling bandits, who then return in the guise of tax men, taking cows away from an innocent rancher to use for business subsidies and charity, which isn’t fair because the law is supposed to protect her property, and anyway the rancher gives cows to charity sometimes already.

Since taxation is theft, the kids lobby to get the laws changed, and after an amusing title card that says,

The whole town has voted to repeal the taxes and they capture the rustlers, huzzah!

Anyway, the Tuttle Twins go back home, and call an emergency meeting of the Cul-de-sac kids club to hold a vote to repeal the law that allows the President to have as much lemonade as she wants. Of course, the vote goes their way…

Which is when Karinne reveals her trump card, which is that the club by-laws allow the President a unilateral veto over any proposed amendments to the club rules.

Furthermore, she points out that the Kids Club is not a government organization, but a private one which is simply a contractual relationship that the twins entered freely. And since the government’s job is to enforce contracts and protect private property, the twins will be arrested if they try to violate the contract by taking any of Karinne’s honestly earned lemonade.

Yeah kids, that’s right. Have grandma teleport you back to talk to Murray Rothbard, he’ll explain it to you.

Okay okay I made all that up. I'll stop arguing politics with a children's cartoon.

They successfully overturn the rule but give everybody in the club a glass of lemonade on the house anyway to show there’s no hard feelings.

So, this episode is not that out there. Something I can’t get across in summary is that there are a lot of classic cartoon gags, and a lot of them land. I’ve watched a few episodes of this show now and smiled at a lot of gags and laughed out loud once or twice. As much as I don’t agree with a lot of the ideology behind it it’s not something that was tossed out there.

The animation quality of any given shot varies quite a lot, but there is some attention to the animation, visual gags and comedy timing as well as some funny writing. This isn’t a half-assed scam or complete amateur nonsense, this is clearly made by people who are trying to make something genuinely good outside of its propaganda purpose.

That said, I obviously have some issues with the show.

Honestly going in I thought my biggest problem with this show would be ideological disagreement. And don’t get me wrong, there’s some stuff in this show that I strongly disagree with, but there are quite a few episodes with perfectly fine messages. There’s an episode where they get into a prank war at science camp and eventually it starts wrecking the science projects so Ghandi teaches them about de-escalation. Rosa Parks talks about civil disobedience and how sometimes you should disobey unjust laws, but you should always be aware of the consequences beforehand and think carefully about how and when you should do it. There’s an episode where they talk about respecting different religious traditions and how the government shouldn’t mandate or prevent any religion.

I agree with all of that, even if some of that is something that kids won’t really get to put into practice much.

My big problem is that even though there are gags in the historical parts, this show suffers a problem that a lot of educational shows do, which is that it feels like it stops dead to lecture you about something and you have to just sit through that until the fun bits start up again. The historical figures tend to be heavily simplified in a way that some people might object to, but I think the bigger issue is that this simplification makes their stories less compelling.

You’re not so much living through a recreation of the exciting things the historical figures did so much as listening to them talk about what they did. It’s a real “tell, don’t show” approach that makes about a third of every episode really kind of dull unless it’s one of the episodes where what they’re telling you is batshit crazy.

So if you’re going to watch it for camp value, I really don’t recommend starting with the first episode or trying to watch it in order, I’d just scan the episode summaries and watch one that sounds crazy to you. There are at least two that try to sell Bitcoin to children. There’s a few genuinely bananas episodes and ideas to gawk at if you’re into that kind of thing like I am, but there’s a lot of fairly bland episodes.

And talking about how viewers will view the show…

I have had to accept in my heart that I have no idea who this show is made for.

It has a lot of parallels to American Christian pop culture programs, but like, okay, so right-wing American Christians have built this entire parallel media ecosystem because they’re paranoid that Hollywood secularists are going to corrupt their kids with secularism and paganism. I knew a guy once who said when he was a kid his parents made him stop watching Tiny Tunes because they saw one of the characters meditating, but that’s okay, he could still watch McGee and Me.

Now, I don’t agree with that kind of strict parental thought control, it is at least internally consistent. A lot of parts of the Bible are about devout Godly people being corrupted by worldly concerns or religious apostasy, going at least back to the worship of the Golden Calf in Exodus. And the right wing Christians who are worried about media corruption think any deviation from their theology is a threat to a person’s immortal soul.

So the impulse to shield your child from any media that even slightly questions or contradicts your own views isn’t good, but at least it’s theologically consistent and in keeping with the Bible.

Meanwhile, if you find yourself saying, “As a staunch libertarian and tireless advocate for personal freedom, I believe in strictly controlling what my children are allowed to watch or think.” Like…

You know come on and think for a second about what you’ve just said.

The kind of paranoia about controlling your children’s worldview that would make someone want to watch this really doesn’t seem to me to be in keeping with, well, uh, the actual values espoused in the show.

So I kind of don’t know how to feel about it. Personally, I would never expose a child to this on purpose unless they were old enough to ask some very critical questions about what they were hearing.

On the other hand, when I imagine the kind of person who is going to show this to their kids… I kind of almost wonder if most of the other stuff those kids are seeing is a lot worse. I can kind of imagine a very earnest child taking this stuff seriously enough to start questioning some controlling parent or religious authority.

So I really just don’t know. If anybody has any insight into the culture of the people who watch this kind of thing, I’d be really curious.

[morlock-holmes]

I wrote a very long review of the Tuttle Twins on my side blog. I can't stop talking about it.

[freebroccoli]

The idea that libertarians should be on the side of preppy kids because she represents Randian producers doesn't match how libertarians see the world at all. Even in Atlas Shrugged, the wealthy were overwhelmingly villainous. Based on how you describe her depiction, she's supposed to represent the managerial class, which are among the bad guys in the libertarian view.

I don't understand why you think the purpose of these is to create a parallel media ecosystem to what kids are being exposed to, especially since you acknowledge that doesn't really make sense; I think you are just falsely pattern-matching to Christian media. Other ideologies create children's media to propagate their views, so why shouldn't we?

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

I don't understand why you think the purpose of these is to create a parallel media ecosystem

That's a very fair question, which I suppose I didn't really get into very clearly in the review. I have a lot of thoughts that I haven't quite put in order, but as exhibit A, here's how they advertise the book series the cartoon is based on:

So... It's not nothing, this vibe I'm picking up.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Let's Watch Libertarian Propaganda for Children for Some Reason

Hey everybody, look, it’s the Tuttle Twins!

Yeah, there they are. Zooping around on their time machine.

The Tuttle Twins is a streaming show from Angel Studios, the independent studio behind Sound of Freedom and various Christian and Christian-Adjacent movies. They’ve got some movie about Jesus out right now.

No, you can’t- The Buddy Christ thing isn’t- You don’t- 

Anyway, although I first heard about this cartoon from a youtube channel called “Fundie Fridays” The Tuttle Twins isn’t a Christian propaganda cartoon, it’s a Libertarian propaganda cartoon.

One that teaches kids how to buy Bitcoin!

After watching just the episode about Bitcoin, I wanted to watch and talk about some more episodes. And I sketched out a bit of an intro explaining what Libertarianism is in the minds of the people who created this show, but then I had a second thought.

“Am I just describing a straw-man libertarianism? Am I just paraphrasing these ideas in a way that I find easy to refute? Have I become the very Tuttle Twins I was trying to defeat?"

And then I watched the very first episode and their description of what they believe is pretty much word for word how I was going to explain it.

And hey, they put that episode up on youtube, we can watch it together!

(You can also watch season 1 and 2 and most of 3 for free on their slightly wonky app or web site, but there are a few full episodes on youtube as well)

Or you could skip it and read my amazing summary below!

Anyway, after a brief cold open that sees the twins hurtling through dimensions, and a pretty cute gag we cut to our entrepreneurial twins selling lemonade. The science-minded Emily is using it fund a trip to science camp, and Ethan is using it to fund his purchase of an enormous gummy bear. 

Until, that is, they are confronted by Karinne.

Likes: Fiat Currency, Communism, sweater vests. Dislikes: Freedom

I gotta be honest, I don’t totally get Karinne, she’s kind of a foil or frenemy for the main characters, and she comes off kind of preppy coded, sort of the snobbish rich kid used to getting what she wants, but y’all are libertarians, you shouldn’t be shaming her for the fact that her parents are Randian producers. 

Honestly I am eternally fascinated by kids show characters whose job is to be constantly wrong, but after watching a few episodes I don’t really have a clear read on her. Sometimes she tags along on an adventure and acts as an ideological foil for the kids, but so far I've seen her argue for fiat currency, religious intolerance, the NSA, and using the power of the president for self-enrichment. So... Uh... Not the raging communist I was lead to expect, put it that way.

Also there is a running joke for the first season where people keep pronouncing her name “Karen” and I don’t know if the joke is she’s supposed to be kind of a Karen in the slang sense? But honestly when I picture the kind of mother who would show this show to her kids… People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, that’s all I’m saying.

Anyway, it turns out Karinne is the president of the “Cul-de-sac Kids Club” and last night she held a meeting to amend the laws of the kids club to allow the president to have as much lemonade as she wants, so she has some lackeys just cart away all of the lemonade, leaving our heroes without a way to earn money in the glorious American free market economy, what with the means of production having been confiscated and all.

The good news, though, is that Grandma is moving in! Along with her pet, and very specifically not tame raccoon Derek, who was banned from her previous dwelling by the HOA because, quote, “HOAs are full of communists”. Someone should put that on a shirt and sell plush toys of that raccoon.

I do enjoy the fact that her first impulse on hearing that Karinne is going to confiscate the lemonade is to slingshot a bar of soap at her head:

Don’t worry, she doesn’t actually assault a child.

Anyway, that night as the twins are lamenting the loss of they hear the noise of an acetylene welding torch coming from their grandmother’s room.

It turns out she made her mobility scooter into a gadget-laden time machine, so our show has a premise now. Huzzah!

After a series of actually pretty good gags, the kids end up in France, 1848 to meet with Frédéric Bastiat, who I was not previously aware of but who appears to be one of the founding figures of modern libertarian ideology.

Apparently American politics these days are all your fault you french son of a gun. Also wow they drew your hand wrong in this frame.

And he describes what I was going to describe about the libertarian moral foundations of this show.

“My book is about the idea that laws should protect our God-given rights or ‘Natural rights’. Having rights means there are some things you can do, and nobody is allowed to stop you!”

Specifically, rights to life, to liberty (Meaning the right to do what we want so long as it doesn’t take away another person’s rights) and to own property.

And to be clear, and this is explained later in the episode, these are very negative rights. The role of the government is not to ensure that you have any specific amount of property, liberty or life. Rather, you have to gather as much as you are able by your own lights, and the government’s sole role is to prevent other people from taking whatever property you have or abrogating your liberties or killing you.

Does that mean that taxation for the public good is the same as theft?

You betcha, which is what we learn in the next part of the show. A part which is largely so boring that I can't be bothered to screencap it.

The time machine runs out of “Knowledge Juice” and strands them in an Old West Town. Knowledge Juice is the fuel for the time machine, it’s a green goo that goes down when they travel through time, and up when they explain that they’ve learned something. And it’s a plot device that I think they eventually get rid of just because it gets kind of redundant.

Actually I’ll just sort of go over the formula of the show. 

The kids have some more or less relatable real world problem;

Grandma takes them back in time to meet a historical figure who tells them about some libertarian principle;

On the way back the time machine runs out of knowledge juice in some fantastical situation;

The kids solve the situation using their new libertarian knowledge;

They refill the knowledge juice reserves by explaining what they learned;

They then go back home and use what they learned to solve their ordinary kid problem.

Just from a story structure perspective the part where they refill the knowledge juice is extremely redundant; It would be more elegant to just have them explain the lesson to the other kids when they solve their problem at the end of the episode. I think eventually they figured that out.

Arguably, if you really wanted to condense things you’d have the kids go on a historical adventure with the historical figure, then come back to the present and explain what they learned and apply it to their current situation, but the reason they have sections 3 and 4 is because those are usually where the crazy cartoon stuff comes in, they end up in some alternate fantasy dimension or shrunk down and fighting a worm war, or something fun like that.

Except for this pilot episode, where parts 3-5 just take place in a generic old west town. Not really starting with a bang honestly.

Basically, the Sheriff fights off two cattle rustling bandits, who then return in the guise of tax men, taking cows away from an innocent rancher to use for business subsidies and charity, which isn’t fair because the law is supposed to protect her property, and anyway the rancher gives cows to charity sometimes already.

Since taxation is theft, the kids lobby to get the laws changed, and after an amusing title card that says,

The whole town has voted to repeal the taxes and they capture the rustlers, huzzah!

Anyway, the Tuttle Twins go back home, and call an emergency meeting of the Cul-de-sac kids club to hold a vote to repeal the law that allows the President to have as much lemonade as she wants. Of course, the vote goes their way…

Which is when Karinne reveals her trump card, which is that the club by-laws allow the President a unilateral veto over any proposed amendments to the club rules.

Furthermore, she points out that the Kids Club is not a government organization, but a private one which is simply a contractual relationship that the twins entered freely. And since the government’s job is to enforce contracts and protect private property, the twins will be arrested if they try to violate the contract by taking any of Karinne’s honestly earned lemonade.

Yeah kids, that’s right. Have grandma teleport you back to talk to Murray Rothbard, he’ll explain it to you.

Okay okay I made all that up. I'll stop arguing politics with a children's cartoon.

They successfully overturn the rule but give everybody in the club a glass of lemonade on the house anyway to show there’s no hard feelings.

So, this episode is not that out there. Something I can’t get across in summary is that there are a lot of classic cartoon gags, and a lot of them land. I’ve watched a few episodes of this show now and smiled at a lot of gags and laughed out loud once or twice. As much as I don’t agree with a lot of the ideology behind it it’s not something that was tossed out there.

The animation quality of any given shot varies quite a lot, but there is some attention to the animation, visual gags and comedy timing as well as some funny writing. This isn’t a half-assed scam or complete amateur nonsense, this is clearly made by people who are trying to make something genuinely good outside of its propaganda purpose.

That said, I obviously have some issues with the show.

Honestly going in I thought my biggest problem with this show would be ideological disagreement. And don’t get me wrong, there’s some stuff in this show that I strongly disagree with, but there are quite a few episodes with perfectly fine messages. There’s an episode where they get into a prank war at science camp and eventually it starts wrecking the science projects so Ghandi teaches them about de-escalation. Rosa Parks talks about civil disobedience and how sometimes you should disobey unjust laws, but you should always be aware of the consequences beforehand and think carefully about how and when you should do it. There’s an episode where they talk about respecting different religious traditions and how the government shouldn’t mandate or prevent any religion.

I agree with all of that, even if some of that is something that kids won’t really get to put into practice much.

My big problem is that even though there are gags in the historical parts, this show suffers a problem that a lot of educational shows do, which is that it feels like it stops dead to lecture you about something and you have to just sit through that until the fun bits start up again. The historical figures tend to be heavily simplified in a way that some people might object to, but I think the bigger issue is that this simplification makes their stories less compelling.

You’re not so much living through a recreation of the exciting things the historical figures did so much as listening to them talk about what they did. It’s a real “tell, don’t show” approach that makes about a third of every episode really kind of dull unless it’s one of the episodes where what they’re telling you is batshit crazy.

So if you’re going to watch it for camp value, I really don’t recommend starting with the first episode or trying to watch it in order, I’d just scan the episode summaries and watch one that sounds crazy to you. There are at least two that try to sell Bitcoin to children. There’s a few genuinely bananas episodes and ideas to gawk at if you’re into that kind of thing like I am, but there’s a lot of fairly bland episodes.

And talking about how viewers will view the show…

I have had to accept in my heart that I have no idea who this show is made for.

It has a lot of parallels to American Christian pop culture programs, but like, okay, so right-wing American Christians have built this entire parallel media ecosystem because they’re paranoid that Hollywood secularists are going to corrupt their kids with secularism and paganism. I knew a guy once who said when he was a kid his parents made him stop watching Tiny Tunes because they saw one of the characters meditating, but that’s okay, he could still watch McGee and Me.

Now, I don’t agree with that kind of strict parental thought control, it is at least internally consistent. A lot of parts of the Bible are about devout Godly people being corrupted by worldly concerns or religious apostasy, going at least back to the worship of the Golden Calf in Exodus. And the right wing Christians who are worried about media corruption think any deviation from their theology is a threat to a person’s immortal soul.

So the impulse to shield your child from any media that even slightly questions or contradicts your own views isn’t good, but at least it’s theologically consistent and in keeping with the Bible.

Meanwhile, if you find yourself saying, “As a staunch libertarian and tireless advocate for personal freedom, I believe in strictly controlling what my children are allowed to watch or think.” Like…

You know come on and think for a second about what you’ve just said.

The kind of paranoia about controlling your children’s worldview that would make someone want to watch this really doesn’t seem to me to be in keeping with, well, uh, the actual values espoused in the show.

So I kind of don’t know how to feel about it. Personally, I would never expose a child to this on purpose unless they were old enough to ask some very critical questions about what they were hearing.

On the other hand, when I imagine the kind of person who is going to show this to their kids… I kind of almost wonder if most of the other stuff those kids are seeing is a lot worse. I can kind of imagine a very earnest child taking this stuff seriously enough to start questioning some controlling parent or religious authority.

So I really just don’t know. If anybody has any insight into the culture of the people who watch this kind of thing, I’d be really curious.

[nostalgebraist]

Luckily for any adult viewers, some helpful soul by the name of malvolio80 has uploaded the series to Youtube with all but one of the awful educational sections mercifully excised.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

What are we talking about?

Oh shit, Look and Read! I just found out about this.

[phaeton-flier]

Star Wars is amazing because it is actually well-suited to sequels and spin-offs and such; there's a literal galaxy out there of shit going on, except almost all of them suck huge ass because every expanded universe work sticks to the original trilogy like a bird afraid to leave the nest.

[official-kircheis]

andor ties in to the original trilogy only very weakly. this is part of why it’s the the best star wars.

[raginrayguns]

yeah idk anything about andor but yeah the impression you get from the movies is that the "galaxy" is a village of like 200 people

[official-kircheis]

do you? maybe with the sequel trilogy. but if you restrict to the movies, also, well there’s only so much screen time. but in spin-off works throwaway characters have entire books about them. darth plagueis is talked about for one minute in rots but has an entire novel about him.

[phaeton-flier]

I think it's more like "We took a great photo of these 12 people, and anyone outside that image exists but does not matter"

To borrow an old Brazen take, everything in the EU burns the rest of the galaxy, because the only way they know how to make new stories is by hyping up Glup Shitto

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

I mean, also the big problem you run into is the same one that you run into with Lord of The Rings, which is that it's very hard to argue that anything else going on in the galaxy really mattered too much.

"This guy in the background? You want to know his mysterious backstory?"

"Sure, I want to know all about this amazing universe."

"Well you see he once... stole some money!"

"That's all?"

"It was really hard...

"Just... doesn't really seem that important compared to stopping the genocidal space wizard and his planet destroying battle station from dominating everything in the known galaxy. Kind of a let down."

"He- He had to betray a woman he loved."

"And did betraying her stop any planets from being exploded?"

"It made him sad..."

"Yeah but he was sad on an unexploded planet"

Like, it's very difficult to go higher stakes, or frankly even equal stakes, from Death Star, which is why the sequels introduced a second Death Star, followed by a third Death Star But It Has A Different Name Now. (Not to mention a second Darth Vader and a Second Emperor followed up with the First Emperor coming back again).

And so you either have to loop the character somehow back into the Original Trilogy (He had to betray the woman he loved to get the Death Star plans into the hands of the Rebellion!) or you are stuck telling a story that, objectively speaking, isn't that important.

[discoursedrome]

The "hater" is such a modern device, and yet I feel like you could transport it to almost any point in history and it would catch on immediately. It slots right into the whole evil-eye tradition, and it can interface with the boasting/satire culture associated with bards and verbal contests. You could imagine Beowulf calling Unferth a hater. And then the sense of the word "hate" itself is basically locked in by Middle English, so it could pretty easily have been present since Chaucer if the circumstances had been different. If any of you end up travelling back to medieval times you should absolutely pitch them on this, it will probably come up organically while you're trying to teach them germ theory

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

"We traveled all the way back in time, to call you a cracker"

[ikuzeminna]

I need your help with a hypothesis!

For context: My linguistics professor and I got into a discussion after a test she did with us, and I was of the opinion that the reason for the results was different from the one she offered, so she encouraged me to test my theory.

What I need

All you need to do is draw a coffee cup (with a handle, not the disposable stuff) and then answer three questions.

I don't need to see the coffee cup. You can draw it wherever you like; on a piece of paper, digitally, in the sand, on a foggy window. Anything works. It does not have to be good. A doodle is fine.

You have to draw the coffee cup before you see the questions. This is very important. If you decide to help me with this, please doodle the coffee cup before you keep reading.

Assuming you have drawn the coffee cup, I now need you to answer these three questions:

On which side did you draw the handle?

Are you right-handed or left-handed?

Do you primarily write using the Latin alphabet or a different one? (please specify which)

More context

Most people will draw the handle on the right side. My professor says it's because most people are right-handed, so they draw the handle in the direction that would be comfortable for them to pick up.

I said drawing it on the right side just felt more comfortable to my hand and argued it's probably because we write a bunch of letters like that. B, b, D, P, p, R all look like a tiny "handle on the right side" and are all a straight line followed by a round one (so "cup first, handle second," like most people draw cups). The Latin alphabet doesn't have letters like that that face the other way, except maybe d, depending on how you write it, so it makes sense to me that people writing mostly Latin letters would go with the handle on the right side.

Which means that I need to know what Asians, Arabs and Greeks do and if the distribution of left and right sides of handles differs from the Latin alphabet group. Cyrillic seems to favor right, too, though it'd be interesting to see if there are differences.

If there are, my theory is right. Doubly so if there is a sizeable increase in a group whose alphabet has letters that benefit the left side choice.

So feel free to spread this to as many people as you like and put the answers in the comments or the tags of a reblog. The more answers I get, the better I can assess whose theory is better.

Thank you for your help!

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Handle on the right side;

Left handed;

Latin alphabet

[dragongirlsweetie]

i'm gonna be honest i don't get why they say everypony instead of everybody in mlp. it's not like the word everybody is human-specific. the ponies have bodies. the word everypony, however, is pony-specific in a world where ponies are not the only people in their society, which means it would be more accurate and inclusive to use everybody instead of everypony. it all makes no sense to me

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Yeah it's because the ponies have a very insular culture and they tend to be mildly racist.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

Saw The Heretic. Perfectly adequate.

It's a movie about how being on Twitter and YouTube feels like being trapped in a murder house, and how we can no longer imagine anything better.

I'm not sure the writers are entirely aware of what it's about.

The fact that the missionaries are Mormons feels like it should be important but ultimately I think they could have been any religion.

Arguably the perspective of the film is that religion in modern days has purpose only as a way of winning fights on twitter.

[tsarina-anadyomene]

okay another thing: all of these games have classes that are built around being the Face of the party. and that's mechanically dumb! why would you want it to be mechanically advantageous for one player to talk every time!

[discoursedrome]

honestly I don't really get this criticism? my experience is that if you have a "face" character then they usually take point in tense or results-oriented social scenes (and the player usually chooses them because they like that), but everyone else still participates in the scene, just less so and (to the extent that "doing social stuff" is mechanical), less efficaciously. this honestly works fine for everything; you would be surprised how much better fights run under the same approach. I don't really see other people bow out of the scene that often unless they want to.

There's really no getting around this cleanly, I don't think? having classes implies specialization, which in turn implies that if you don't want to strongly encourage everyone to act in an engagement that the specialists will each take the lead in their respective areas. You can make a case for slicing things by "social domains" rather than competencies, and in fact this is more like how D&D actually does do it, but that just means that people dominate in their domain instead. But I've pretty rarely seen games where having a social cannon mechanically stifled other characters from roleplaying social interactions, that feels a little unusual.

The actual issue is basically that nobody has a great handle on how to mechanize, instrumentalize or resolve social scenes. I have seen systems of varying levels of formality that try to follow the combat model where everybody takes a turn and you're expected to work together, and oh my god it's a mess, it does not work at all unless you are compressing a whole gala or diplomatic summit into one or two of those "rounds". But I can't remember ever seeing a problem that I felt was caused by a game having a "Face" character type in and of itself; that doesn't seem meaningfully different to having a character who's good at disarming traps.

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

In practice I tend to save the social rolls for when Roleplaying is either too boring or too ambiguous.

Like, "Can I sweet talk the bouncer into letting us into the club"

You can just roll some dice and if it comes up good we just go, "Okay, you and the bouncer have a mutual hobby and after sharing some stories he agrees to let you in even though you aren't on the list."

Also use them to decide for NPCs when there has been a long in character RP session, and my feelings about whether the NPC would agree to something are, "Eh, maybe? The PC made some good points but this NPC still has some good counter-arguments, roll a social skill"

Instrumental social skills are kind of just powers for passing obstacles, "Can I sweet talk the bouncer" is kind of the same sort of question as "Can I shimmy up that drainpipe and climb in the window"

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

To pull out even further, I have three pieces of GM advice.

You are not going to interest your players in parts of the game they find boring. If they find politicking with the Grand Duchess boring and just want to bash Orcs on the head, you are almost certainly not going to fix that by finding the right system.

If the game is broadly about mechanically differentiated characters solving problems, players will want to throw the person who is most likely to solve a problem at the problem. If they know combat is coming, they'll try to bring their most combat focused character along. If they know they need to make a good impression, they'll bring the face. If there's sneaking, the guys with no stealth skill will probably leave it to the thief. Your job as the GM is to let them do this most of the time while finding reasons that occasionally, for dramatic purposes, people who are bad at this stuff have to try it.

If you want everybody to roleplay, just don't penalize them for having low charisma, it's that simple. If the guy with no social stats gives the DA a bunch of video recordings that prove a character is a crime boss, that's enough. If the player comes up with a great argument, or really vibes with an NPC, just go with it, don't be like, "Well that was a good argument but you failed your charisma roll."

Face characters are not there to do all the roleplaying; they are there to *solve social problems*. These are actually two different things.