a brief analysis of this post, since this has become necessary:
this joke operates through absurd extension.
there exists a real argument that animation is "for children." this is an argument most people have encountered at least once in their lives. whether they agree with it is irrelevant; they recognize it as a familiar position. the joke takes that argument and extends it beyond the point of reason.
instead of saying animation is for children, it says ALL movies are for children. instead of stopping there, it goes further and suggests that the moving image itself is inherently juvenile. instead of stopping THERE, it goes even further and implies that enjoying images at all is childish. at each step, the claim becomes more ridiculous.
this is a rhetorical device called reductio ad absurdum. one takes a premise and follows its logic to an absurd conclusion, demonstrating that the premise itself may be flawed. for the post to be sincere, one would have to genuinely believe that the entire medium of cinema is intrinsically childish. that the technological phenomenon of projected moving images itself is puerile
(which is not a position held by any meaningful school of criticism, philosophy, aesthetics, media studies, psychology, sociology, anthropology, or common sense)
the sentence "the moving image is inherently juvenile" is not written like a serious claim. it is written like an exaggerated parody of a serious claim. it adopts the language of academic certainty while attaching it to a proposition so self-evidently ridiculous that the contrast becomes the joke
a useful comparison, in this case, would be: "all books are for children because they contain little pretend symbols."
or: "all music is for children because adults should not require repetitive sounds in order to feel emotions."
or: "all food is for children because mature people should not require a little snack.”
these statements are not arguments, nor are they “mean” (to whom? movies?? people who watch them? almost everyone in the world????). they are comic escalations. some responses have argued that the post is not a joke because it is not funny. fortunately, the presence of humor is not determined by whether a particular individual laughs.
a joke can fail. a joke can be unfunny. a joke can be poorly received. what it cannot be is transformed into a sincere statement by virtue of somebody not liking it. if i tell a knock-knock joke and nobody laughs, i have told a bad joke. i have not unintentionally published a manifesto on knocking doors.
thank you for attending my emergency symposium on the idea that movies are for babies. jesus christ man
