The Emperor's New Clothes - Oneshot

[Juggernautbob]

Okay, simpler terms. The emperor's foolishness takes nothing away from the usefulness of the tale, because people are exactly that foolish for many of the same reasons all the time.

They could have made the tale more about the dangers of peer pressure, instead they chose to make it about the dangers of being so stupid a kid could outsmart you.

 

[Juggernautbob]

If YOU want to stare at naked people, they still have nudist beaches in Europe lol, I just want to swim with a reasonable amount of hydrodynamics. As goofy as this discussion was, I am glad to have had it and wish I could shake your hand despite our differences. Good day.

Not saying I want to stare at naked people lol (I actually find clothed people to be way more attractive anyways) just saying that there is a huge amount of swimwear that is obviously just to show off bare skin, instead of to provide practical water movement. For instance there's little to no reason for people to not just wear what divers wear when they go swimming, I think it's called a wetsuit or whatever? Way more practical with a lot less indecent exposure. Anywho, good day to you as well.

 

[feha]

It's not that he doesn't care. He just doesn't want to out himself as incompetent to anyone (by admitting he can't see it), including the woman giving the clothes, so he's bluffing that he can see it (the "not bad~" line), AND created a reversal of the situation by making her put on the clothes in his stead. I don't think a king would readily admit their incompetence to anyone. Doing that is a good way to get yourself overthrown or assassinated.

Based on the fact that she is embarrassed (the implication is that she knows she'd be seen naked), means she is likely also incompetent and cannot see (but she can feel) what she is holding.

There's just a lot of reading between the lines going on in this one page.

Only way to out oneself as incompetent is by not realizing that "clothes stupid people can't see" means wearing the clothes causes all idiots to see you naked, and start wearing them in public.
So bob is correct in that the king is either an exhibitionist, or an idiot.
And you are absolutely incorrect that anyone would think the king admits he can't see it himself, if he raises the very obvious concern about those clothes.

 

[Coldlight]

Only way to out oneself as incompetent is by not realizing that "clothes stupid people can't see" means wearing the clothes causes all idiots to see you naked, and start wearing them in public.
So bob is correct in that the king is either an exhibitionist, or an idiot.
And you are absolutely incorrect that anyone would think the king admits he can't see it himself, if he raises the very obvious concern about those clothes.

I wonder if we actually read the same thing, or are you conflating this one page manga with the original tale of the emperor's new clothes that talk about stupidity?

Nowhere in this manga did anything say that if you can't see it, you're stupid. It says incompetent. Incompetence and stupidity are often correlated, but they aren't the same thing. For example, a corrupt, evil king good at staying in power with typically tyrannical methods can be clever at politics and is not stupid, but also incompetent at ruling his kingdom as the corruption will cause his people to suffer and his kingdom to decline. A doctor can be incompetent with matters of law (we have lawyers for that), but that doesn't mean he's stupid.

 

[feha]

I wonder if we actually read the same thing, or are you conflating this one page manga with the original tale of the emperor's new clothes that talk about stupidity?

I were replying to a comment chain that started with bob referencing the original story - specifically replying to your (first) reply to that chain. So no, not conflating this manga with that story. This manga was never part of that conversation.

Nowhere in this manga did anything say that if you can't see it, you're stupid. It says incompetent. Incompetence and stupidity are often correlated, but they aren't the same thing. For example, a corrupt, evil king good at staying in power with typically tyrannical methods can be clever at politics and is not stupid, but also incompetent at ruling his kingdom as the corruption will cause his people to suffer and his kingdom to decline. A doctor can be incompetent with matters of law (we have lawyers for that), but that doesn't mean he's stupid.

Whether it's stupidity or incompetence does not matter in the slightest. The point is that those individuals can see you, and that you do not present yourself as part of that group when you present the issue that they can see you naked. Focusing on whether it's one or the other is entirely missing the point of the comment your reply was replying to:

That's all well and good, but it still doesn't explain why the king doesn't care if idiots see him naked. Did he have that much trust in the fact that every single person around him would be intelligent? Seems like the king really was an idiot after all to me.

 

[Metonym]

They could have made the tale more about the dangers of peer pressure, instead they chose to make it about the dangers of being so stupid a kid could outsmart you.

I think you're getting things a bit backwards. The tale already portrays peer pressure pretty damn well, because it's about how a lie gathers strength when, through various pressures, it causes people to use their intelligence not to pierce the lie, but rationalize and perpetuate it.

The child breaks the illusion without outsmarting anyone. The child does not comprehend the lie, has not worked out logically how to maneuver the swindlers into a position where they must confess, none of that. The child simply says what he sees, just as anyone else in the story could have done. What's different about the child is that he is immune to the rationalizations that others might have used to preserve the lie. A beggar could have done what the ministers could not, and speak up with no fear of endangering his occupation. But people would have come back at him with "and that's why you're not fit for anything but begging," and the lie would have endured.

 

[Juggernautbob]

I think you're getting things a bit backwards. The tale already portrays peer pressure pretty damn well, because it's about how a lie gathers strength when, through various pressures, it causes people to use their intelligence not to pierce the lie, but rationalize and perpetuate it.

The child breaks the illusion without outsmarting anyone. The child does not comprehend the lie, has not worked out logically how to maneuver the swindlers into a position where they must confess, none of that. The child simply says what he sees, just as anyone else in the story could have done. What's different about the child is that he is immune to the rationalizations that others might have used to preserve the lie. A beggar could have done what the ministers could not, and speak up with no fear of endangering his occupation. But people would have come back at him with "and that's why you're not fit for anything but begging," and the lie would have endured.

No no no, I get how the lie works in theory, as you would supposedly have to admit to being incompetent in order to call it out, but the problem with the lie is that it's stupid even if it were the truth. Even if they really did make clothes that were invisible to incompetent people or stupid people, only an incompetent or stupid person would be dumb enough to wear clothes that were invisible to anyone, as that kind of defeats the purpose of wearing clothes.

 

[nueee]

Thank you!