Yes it is. This is literally almost the dictionary definition of a political stance.damn wrote: Mon Aug 25, 2025 1:44 amFreeza was inspired by opportunistic land speculators at the time of the Showa bubble era because he thought those people were the worst. That in itself isn't really a political stance.
Real estate is a supremely, hugely political topic (the current U.S. president literally made his bones originally in the real estate industry), and having an anti-land speculation stance in a work of fiction (even one aimed at children) is a decidedly political take. Like on the sheer obvious face of it.
I honestly think a bunch of you guys literally do not know the basic-most definition of the word "political". Like on a grammar school/pre-5th grade level. You seem to basically deem something "political" only when it makes you personally feel in any remote way uncomfortable, uneasy, or just generally annoyed. The word "political" doesn't mean "anything I don't like or don't want to think too deeply about".
Just about EVERY SINGLE piece of art or media in existence has a political message or point of view, whether its intentional on the part of the creator or not. It is literally *impossible* to create ANY kind of coherent narrative that is completely free of any kind of political message or perspective, even one that is totally unintentional.
Every single piece of art or work of media/fiction you've ever consumed in your entire life has had some sort of political message or point of view in it. Every single fucking one, no matter how innocuous. There's nothing the least bit "insidious" about this necessarily either: its just a fundamental fact of life.
Its impossible to escape, because politics is as inevitable to life and existing within a society as breathing air or being held down to the ground by gravity.
Wanting so desperately for any piece of art or media you consume to be 100% completely free of any kind of political view or message is not only an impossible goal for any work to ever achieve, it is also a completely senseless and idiotic desire for a person to have on its face. You're basically asking that a work be completely free of reflecting any hint or aspect of being alive and existing among other human beings.
You're basically asking for some kind of anti-art, as ALL art, by definition, reflects on SOME aspect of the human condition or existing among other human beings with differing perspectives: which is the basic-most definition or what politics is at its most fundamental core.
If you've EVER engaged with a piece of art or narrative that contains any hint of conflict, then guess what? That work has a political point of view of some kind definitionally, whether you realize it or not or even whether the creator realizes it or not.
If you do not understand this, then you simply do not understand the basic, dictionary definition of the word "politics". Or frankly, "art" either.

Again guys, I've said this many, many times before: you're supposed to have grasped basic, remedial shit like this in grade school. They teach you this in like 3rd grade Social Studies or earlier in most schools. School wasn't just solely supposed to be a place you went as a kid to eat crayons and trade Yu Gi Oh cards.
Guess what? This too is a political point! Office Politics on Toriyama's end, but still a form of politics nonetheless. Parody and caricature are about as political a form of art as it gets.damn wrote: Mon Aug 25, 2025 1:44 amIt's like saying Toriyama had a political stance against Torishima and Yu Kondo because he based villains on them.
Having a political stance or point of view does not in any way, shape or form require "deep thought". Something being "political" does not mean it is inherently "deep". This is a monumentally shallow misreading of the basic-definition of the word "politics".damn wrote: Mon Aug 25, 2025 1:44 amToriyama just liked military tech and fashion, there is no deeper thought to it.
You can put forth a whole vast number of political ideas or statements without having put a single ounce of thought or depth into any of it it. Countless millions of people do that every single day, and you yourself are doing it right here in this thread right now as we speak!
Even voicing the mere desire to be free of any kind of political message or point of view is, in and of itself, a political statement and point of view that you have and are speaking on.
Something being "political" does not automatically mean it has any hint of "depth" to it in any way. "Politics" is not synonymous with "deep thought". Politics is much like life itself: it simply just is. It can be deep and thoughtful or it can just as easily be not-so-deep and even totally fucking stupid. Or neither, or somewhere in between.
And in regards to Dragon Ball, Toriyama having an anti-land speculator message or caricaturizing his own editors in his work are both not at all very deep political messages... and no one ever claimed that they were in the first place. Because once again, "political" does not need to equal "deep". It just is what it is.
Guess what? National Pride aka Nationalism? A hugely, HUGELY political topic in and of itself. You see? You cannot possibly escape from politics. Nor does it really make sense why you'd even want to, unless you are just super anti-social (which if so, is in itself is a political point of view that you would or might have).damn wrote: Mon Aug 25, 2025 1:56 amIt's something called ''National Pride''.
Dragon Ball is a National Treasure.
But even with this one comment right here, you just made Dragon Ball an object of Nationalism and therefore a political point or topic. And you did so without even realizing you did or without putting any hint of "deep thought" into it. Because politics is like air or water or life or existing: it just is and is inescapable.
Getting annoyed at people discussing a political point present in a piece of art (whether it was put there knowingly or unknowingly by the artist, and whether there was any depth of thought put into it or not) is akin to getting annoyed at people for drinking water or going grocery shopping or for just breathing or sleeping.
Engaging in ANY kind of political thought, even the most bare-bones basic kind, is an incredibly essential, rudimentary function of living and existing in a society of any kind among other human beings. To get mad or annoyed by that is not only stupid and incoherent, it is completely and utterly futile: because it will always continue to happen all around you no matter what, whether you like it or not, or whether you even realize its happening or not.
Again, if the mere act of engaging with even the most basic, slimmest, most threadbare and rudimentary hint of political thought gets you irritated (cause god knows not a single person here in this thread was going much further with it than that), then you might as well also get annoyed that people think, speak, eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, or breathe.




