There’s a difference between “everything must be serious at all times” and “people need to nurture the ability to be serious”.

I said that I like a show, and then provided some context for why other people around my age find it appealing. Then you barged in to tell me I'm immature because you don't find the character development or writing (aspects I didn't even mention) is up to your Mature Adult standards.

My contention is that a specific internet show has really obvious, on the nose writing,

that's not even something I'd disagree with. It's a high-concept cartoon, not a novel.

if that’s still your benchmark for good writing

I didn't say that I hold the show up as a benchmark for good writing. You are hallucinating more than chatgpt

then you have failed as a critical consumer of media.

lmao. You take consooming very seriously

I have taken a few hours to do some fun things and hopefully calm myself down a bit, lest I get unnecessarily fired up about a cartoon I haven't even seen more than a few minutes of and didn't particularly like from that limited experience. What I'll say is that there is a valid point that you're trying to make, which is that people shouldn't be reading only YA until they're 35. I would agree that people need to challenge themselves and "nurture the ability to be serious." But your actually valid point here is just getting completely muddied by this whole condescending superiority complex you have, the brainworms around age making you unnecessarily hostile, and also that you assume what other people mean instead of letting them explain themselves. I did actually click like on your first comment: I thought you were being very unnecessarily condescending, and the person you were replying to was in their right to tell you to fuck off for that, but if you'd just left your comment at you finding the writing in TADC to be too on the nose with the characters always spelling out their feelings, then that would've been a perfectly valid critique of the work. I mean, I've heard people say that Moby Dick is on the nose with its symbolism, and it is! All the symbolism in that book is spelled out for you, yet it's still considered a classic and I've enjoyed it. I also find House, MD to have very on the nose writing with the characters' emotions being constantly spelled out for you, but that doesn't mean I don't like House, it just means that that aspect of it does irritate me a bit. And I thought at first that when you said "baby's first", you were referring to the writers, not the viewers — because the writing in TADC is going to suffer a bit from the fact that it's an independent production, right? My understanding is that projects like TADC are made at least partially to build portfolios for the people who work on them, so the most masterful episodic writing won't be found in independent animation of any kind, writers in independent animation are still finding their footing and honing their skills. But no, you were referring to the viewers as babies!

All that Doubtingtammy said was "the overall plot explores cartesian skepticism/dualism, much like the Matrix (and I Have No Mouth...)" — which is a very different claim from saying that TADC is a "benchmark for good writing": that claim is entirely your own invention pulled from thin air. Doubtingtammy didn't even assert that they thought that TADC explored those themes well or even intentionally, just that they thought that the themes were there, and likely inspired by those previous works, and a reason why they found it surprising that young people liked the show. We can maybe infer that Doubtingtammy thought that those themes were explored "well" in TADC, but "well" in what sense? "Well" for a work of contemporary independent animation, or "well" for any work of fiction in any genre or medium, ever? Doubtingtammy didn't specify, but I would've assumed the former, and I guess you must've assumed the latter and just run with your interpretation. The least you could've done is asked why Doubtingtammy had that reading of the work instead of jumping right to calling them an emotionally stunted adult baby. Isn't critical consumption of media all about backing up your analysis using the text?!

In conclusion, I want to say that there doesn't need to be a dichotomy between enjoying "mature" and "immature" things. I'm assuming that Doubtingtammy has read a lot more books and seen a lot more shows and movies than just the ones mentioned in their first comment, and many of those unmentioned works probably are things you'd consider much more well-written than TADC. People should learn to read more than just YA, but that doesn't mean losing the ability to enjoy YA! YA doesn't have to become boring just because there are other things you can read, you just need to be able to appreciate YA for what it is. You know? Like, I like Ante (1975) for what it is — a groundbreaking representation of Sámi issues in the popular culture of Norway — but that doesn't mean I think a 70s live action kids' show is the best thing since sliced bread, it really isn't.

It's just a good thing that some people are able to like things that other people can't.