(L+CR) Gin no Saji/Silver Spoon (Seasons 1 + 2)

[Chaos2Frozen]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So... why relearn the same lesson all over again by naming the next batch of piglets?

Because it's no longer a lesson.

It's how he choose to live his life- this is his 'thing' now.

All of this is in the epilogue.

[FrejaOne]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

He can still love meat, and still care for those animals.

He can't. No one can. Ask anyone involved in killing animals for any production-related purpose, or hunters--anyone with a modicum of sincere compassion towards them either leaves the job or starts drinking. A lot.
The ones left aren't necessarily evil or cruel, but they basically treat animals like things.

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

More importantly this brings about a realistic change- It's a change in the students and how they view this job. And that is more mature and productive than some crusade to stop all animals from being turned into meat just to satisfy oneself.

What kind of change did it bring? Their attitudes don't affect their job.

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

The feeling of Betrayal is a human emotion.

Of course it's a human emotion. It's a human name for the process that involves caring for someone personally and then ending their life for your own profit or entertainment. I don't imply that any farm animal feels that way.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I can see his point. It doesn't matter what they dress it up with. Before Hachiken they raised animals and killed them for their meat. After him they raise animals and kill them for their meat.

And if you're going to say that thanks to Hachiken they won't neglect the animals or treat them badly, you're doing them an injustice. None of them are cruel. Of course they're going to be kind to the animals. Besides, it'd be bad for the end result if they cut corners.

Maybe they'll go the extra mile now. Like Yoshino and her whey-fed pigs. But I don't see Tamako change her mentality. She isn't cruel either. But she is rational.

That's precisely what I mean, which is why I'm quoting the whole comment. You nailed it.
I don't see the point of this arc unless the author wanted to troll vegans or something.

[MCAL]

Hiromu Arakawa... creating great debate. I think that makes this show a success as far as I am concerned.

[FrejaOne]

Originally Posted by HandofFate

That's the point. They're going to end up as meat no matter what. So it would have been the easier path and be like everyone else and take the meat for granted.

Its about how he wants to deal with the conclusion himself as a person. If he never had this experience, he would just be living in the city buying a burger and eating it with no idea where it came from, or the work and labor involved in producing it.

By him thinking about it seriously, it also got the others in the industry that are already taking it as the norm to think about it.

Yes, and he has a choice. He can support it or he can refuse to support it and maybe try to save one animal he has a personal connection to.

He chooses to support it, that's his choice. But the way his choice is dressed up makes it look as if it's some kind of heroic gesture, true and right and important. Instead of him basically deciding bacon is way too tasty to give up.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

He's being teary-eyed and sentimental, mostly. And giving them pet names. Only to betray them at the end. It's personal.

Proper handling means proper care, making sure none of them suffers more than necessary, making sure their lives are as comfortable as possible. It's not any more personal than a good nurse's attitude. Kind, yes, but not personal.

Yeah... you seem to have missed how Hachiken did all of that. The pigs already had more room than normal farm pigs, he brushed them (even the ones he didn't name), made sure even the runt of the litter got properly fed, cleaned their pen, and asked the butcher to make it as painless as possible. Or are you going to say that he has to kill the pig himself for it to count?

And seriously, you make no sense. You say it's okay when a farmer does it, but not when Hachiken does it? Because he's "betraying" the animal, but the farmer isn't? Why? "Because"?

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

If he truly cared, he would have tried to save PB's life or he would have stopped eating meat and helping people who raise animals for meat.
Anything else is meaningless, because it doesn't bring any real change.

Yeah, you definitely either missed episodes or just don't understand. First off, the teacher thought he was going to buy the pig before he went to slaughter. That's why she asked how he would care for it, pay for its food, who would take care of it after he graduated, etc. He can't, that's why he didn't. He knew this, but apparently you don't.

Second, it's meaningless if it doesn't bring any real change? Seriously, get a grip on reality here. This is a slice of life series grounded in the real world. He isn't going to change the world and stop the farming of animals. And how would him becoming vegan change anything either? That'd just be running away, which was a big theme of this arc too.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

What kind of change did it bring? Their attitudes don't affect their job.

There was an entire 5 or 10 minute segment devoted to this question in the episode with the festival. I suggest you go back and rewatch the series.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

I don't see the point of this arc

Bingo.

[FrejaOne]

I guess I'm just extremely disappointed in the whole show, not just in its main character. It's going to be one of my bad analogies again, but it feels like I've been watching a story of a reluctant somewhat timid hero getting ready to save the princess against the great odds and then at the end he raped her, enjoyed the hell out of it and keeps saying he is in love with her.

Sounds harsh, I know.

[FrejaOne]

Originally Posted by GDB

Yeah... you seem to have missed how Hachiken did all of that. The pigs already had more room than normal farm pigs, he brushed them (even the ones he didn't name), made sure even the runt of the litter got properly fed, cleaned their pen, and asked the butcher to make it as painless as possible. Or are you going to say that he has to kill the pig himself for it to count?

To count for what?

Originally Posted by GDB

You say it's okay when a farmer does it, but not when Hachiken does it? Because he's "betraying" the animal, but the farmer isn't? Why? "Because"?

The farmer is honest with himself. He is not contemplating saving the animals. He has no feelings for them. He's in it for the meat since the very beginning.

Originally Posted by GDB

He can't, that's why he didn't. He knew this, but apparently you don't.

This is a made-up story. Yes, there are some genre limits, but if the author wanted it to end differently, she would have written in some friend whose great aunt lives out in the country and adores pigs or something. The point is, it is the author's free artistic choice to make it this way, and that's what I'm arguing with.

Originally Posted by GDB

Second, it's meaningless if it doesn't bring any real change? Seriously, get a grip on reality here. This is a slice of life series grounded in the real world.

So what again? It's still a made-up story, not a documentary.
And yes, it's meaningless if you keep actively supporting it while crying about it. You know what it reminded me of? How some girl will cry when she sees a movie about furry animals being slaughtered for their fur, yet in an hour she will still ask her boyfriend to give her a fur coat.

Originally Posted by GDB

And how would him becoming vegan change anything either? That'd just be running away, which was a big theme of this arc too.

This logic makes no sense. So if you don't like something and it makes you sad, helping people do more of it, increase its importance and support its prosperity is the logical thing to do?

[Guardian Enzo]

IMO the question of whether it's right to raise animals for slaughter - as important as it is - isn't the main point of the series. Rather, it's used as a vehicle to show Hachiken's struggles in trying to figure out who he is. It's obviously something Arakawa has spent a good deal of time thinking about herself, and as Fuji-sensei says, I suspect she's never come up with a satisfactory answer. I respect the fact that she's honest enough to admit that rather than pretending she has.

That said, while I wouldn't phrase it so harshly as it's been phrased here, I do think there's something to the idea that trying to be loving and respectful to animals while they're alive and then sending them to the abattoir right on schedule is hypocritical. Some people never think about this issue, some do. And among those, some decide that eating meat is OK and some decide it isn't. But let's not kid ourselves that Hachiken's answer is about the pigs - it's not. The naming and the petting and the cuddling is for him, not them - it's because he feels guilty for loving pork too much to stop eating it and wants to do something to assuage that guilt. And feeding them whey wouldn't be because they like it so much - it would be because it would make them taste better after they're dead.

Again, to Arakawa's credit I think she basically acknowledges this pretty openly - I don't think she's found an answer herself, and there probably isn't one apart from making a decision and being at peace with it. But I think she's also saying that at the very least, it's better to be aware of the sacrifices that are being made than to be oblivious to them.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

He can't. No one can. Ask anyone involved in killing animals for any production-related purpose, or hunters--anyone with a modicum of sincere compassion towards them either leaves the job or starts drinking. A lot.
The ones left aren't necessarily evil or cruel, but they basically treat animals like things.

Who are you to say what he can or can't achieve?

If anything the fact that he's seriously putting in the effort to try to do so is something to be admired.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

What kind of change did it bring? Their attitudes don't affect their job.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

That's precisely what I mean, which is why I'm quoting the whole comment. You nailed it.
I don't see the point of this arc unless the author wanted to troll vegans or something.

You're exactly like Hachiken's father, only caring about tangible results.

As for the 'point' of this arc, I've been repeating it.

You're just ignoring it in favour of your own 'version'.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

Yes, and he has a choice. He can support it or he can refuse to support it and maybe try to save one animal he has a personal connection to.

He chooses to support it, that's his choice. But the way his choice is dressed up makes it look as if it's some kind of heroic gesture, true and right and important. Instead of him basically deciding bacon is way too tasty to give up.

First off there is nothing 'heroic' about his decision itself because it's a personal choice that he has taken upon himself I don't know why you would even think that.

The reason why the others respect him for it is because it's a difficult path to walk and that they admire him for even attempting it.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

I guess I'm just extremely disappointed in the whole show, not just in its main character. It's going to be one of my bad analogies again, but it feels like I've been watching a story of a reluctant somewhat timid hero getting ready to save the princess against the great odds and then at the end he raped her, enjoyed the hell out of it and keeps saying he is in love with her.

Sounds harsh, I know.

Yup, completely missing the entire point of the show.

Seriously, stop projecting yourself and just watch it proper.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

You know what it reminded me of? How some girl will cry when she sees a movie about furry animals being slaughtered for their fur, yet in an hour she will still ask her boyfriend to give her a fur coat.

Does she eat that fur coat as well? Skin it herself? Raised the animal?

Or maybe you have missed that part about accepting that people need to eat meat? Or that this is the livelihood of many people.

Originally Posted by IllegalGoddess

This logic makes no sense. So if you don't like something and it makes you sad, helping people do more of it, increase its importance and support its prosperity is the logical thing to do?

Because in the end he accepts it's the way of life and he embraces it, not running away.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

And feeding them whey wouldn't be because they like it so much - it would be because it would make them taste better after they're dead.

I don't think so- Note that Hachiken only did so after hearing that Butadon would be graded as a "poor meat" or something- I forgot the actual term they used.

In some ways, him fattening it up was an attempt to make his life worth more, and I don't mean it in terms of just the money.

If the value of a pig's life is how much they weight, then he wants Butadon to be a 'good pig' in the eyes of people.

[340.29]

But that's precisely what makes it empty and pretentious.
They are going to end up as meat no matter what his feelings are, so if he is going to kill and eat them anyway, his feelings aren't worth anything.

The farmer is honest with himself. He is not contemplating saving the animals. He has no feelings for them. He's in it for the meat since the very beginning.

I'm not sure how you can disregard emotion for the sake of results then acknowledge emotion because of results. But as that seems to be a trend in your hypocritical posts about hypocrisy, so be it.

The viewpoint of the story is from a human perspective, that deals with animals. It is no way meant to be seen from an animal perspective, that deals with humans. While your point stands, that it is hypocritical to love and accept Pork Bowls death, the hypocrisy only fits from an animal perspective. If you were to make this a debate about animal rights, there would be hypocrisy in any direction you turn, as the subject is so clouded in grey. But it is very unreasonable to judge the show based on a criteria that is important to you, but not to the show. Even if this were a minor detail that you could not look past, you're forgetting this is a particular brand of hypocrisy that is innate in all of us. It is not specific. For example, if your analogies were to be extended further, you said yourself that you eat meat, does that mean you are incapable of caring for animals? Of course not. But it does make you a hypocrite.

One of the true aspects of the show that make it shine is growth. Growth implies mistakes are allowed (character flaws). I'm not sure how you can crucify a show on something it's designed to handle.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GDB

Yeah... you seem to have missed how Hachiken did all of that. The pigs already had more room than normal farm pigs,

Which he had nothing to do with.

he brushed them (even the ones he didn't name), made sure even the runt of the litter got properly fed, cleaned their pen,

Which was his job.

and asked the butcher to make it as painless as possible.

Which the butcher'd had done anyway, because he's not a psychopath. Unless he is a psychopath, and in that case Hachiken just made it worse...

Second, it's meaningless if it doesn't bring any real change? Seriously, get a grip on reality here. This is a slice of life series grounded in the real world. He isn't going to change the world and stop the farming of animals. And how would him becoming vegan change anything either? That'd just be running away, which was a big theme of this arc too.

Saving Pork Bowl would have been a real change to Pork Bowl. Becoming vegan would have meant that many fewer pigs born only to be slaughtered. (Though I don't know how many pigs a single human accounts for.)

Originally Posted by 340.29

I'm not sure how you can disregard emotion for the sake of results then acknowledge emotion because of results. But as that seems to be a trend in your hypocritical posts about hypocrisy, so be it.

It's not about emotions. It's about honesty.

The show, rather than Hachiken, granted, seems to present Hachiken as especially thoughtful and compassionate for what he did and does for the pigs. Indeed, it looks like some of you here bought it. But it makes no practical difference to the pigs. They still end up slaughtered, right on schedule.

(And to muddy the waters further, he is especially thoughtful and compassionate. But it only makes a practical difference when he applies it to humans.)

The viewpoint of the story is from a human perspective, that deals with animals. It is no way meant to be seen from an animal perspective, that deals with humans. While your point stands, that it is hypocritical to love and accept Pork Bowls death, the hypocrisy only fits from an animal perspective. If you were to make this a debate about animal rights, there would be hypocrisy in any direction you turn, as the subject is so clouded in grey. But it is very unreasonable to judge the show based on a criteria that is important to you, but not to the show. Even if this were a minor detail that you could not look past, you're forgetting this is a particular brand of hypocrisy that is innate in all of us. It is not specific. For example, if your analogies were to be extended further, you said yourself that you eat meat, does that mean you are incapable of caring for animals? Of course not. But it does make you a hypocrite.

There are pets, and there are food on legs. Not many people can treat an animal like the former for a set time and then turn around and treat it like the latter for the last two days of its life.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Saving Pork Bowl would have been a real change to Pork Bowl. Becoming vegan would have meant that many fewer pigs born only to be slaughtered. (Though I don't know how many pigs a single human accounts for.)

You seem to be confused about who is suppose to serve whose character development.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not about emotions. It's about honesty.

The show, rather than Hachiken, granted, seems to present Hachiken as especially thoughtful and compassionate for what he did and does for the pigs. Indeed, it looks like some of you here bought it. But it makes no practical difference to the pigs. They still end up slaughtered, right on schedule.

(And to muddy the waters further, he is especially thoughtful and compassionate. But it only makes a practical difference when he applies it to humans.)

This show is not about animal rights.

It's not about saving the animals from the evil humans; It's about people involved in the agriculture line of work, and so this is their reality. Saving one pig because you're attached to it, or suddenly declaring that animals should not be eaten is quite frankly something city folks have the luxury of saying when their livelihood doesn't depend on it.

If you want to talk about honesty, I don't seem to recall anyone "leading the pigs on" by promising that they would live happy ever after.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

There are pets, and there are food on legs. Not many people can treat an animal like the former for a set time and then turn around and treat it like the latter for the last two days of its life.

Just because you can't distinguish the two just because it has a name, doesn't mean other can't.

It also doesn't mean that he thinks pets can be eaten, just in case you were going to say that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S - I realized that you're probably just playing the devil's advocate here, but all this is really only an issue if you ignore the premise and context of the story.

[jeroz]

So many vegans here

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

You seem to be confused about who is suppose to serve whose character development.

I don't see how that matters.

This show is not about animal rights.

It's not about saving the animals from the evil humans; It's about people involved in the agriculture line of work, and so this is their reality. Saving one pig because you're attached to it, or suddenly declaring that animals should not be eaten is quite frankly something city folks have the luxury of saying when their livelihood doesn't depend on it.

That's really not the point.

If you want to talk about honesty, I don't seem to recall anyone "leading the pigs on" by promising that they would live happy ever after.



Just because you can't distinguish the two just because it has a name, doesn't mean other can't.

It also doesn't mean that he thinks pets can be eaten, just in case you were going to say that.

It goes beyond the name. Yoshino's made the point Pork Bowl behaved the way he did because Hachiken treated it like a pet.


My POV is that there is something hypocritical about not making a distinction between pets and food. But a bit of hypocrisy isn't so bad. Who does it hurt? But at the same time, I'm not going to be swooning at how attached to the pigs Hachiken is. Because that attachment changes nothing.

[Gan_HOPE326]

I think I can see where the "hypocrisy" of Hachiken's position should lie: he weights two issues in a complete different way, and ends up preferring just the fact that he likes meat (something that is almost exclusively a leisure) to actually saving the lives of animals, or at least refusing to take part in their slaughter. If the "food" involved here were people, this would be nothing short of monstrous: I refuse to oppose the infliction of death and suffering on the simple base that I like it too much how it is. It wouldn't be different from, say, supporting gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome because, no matter how I think it's unfair that people is sent to die, I enjoy too much the show.

However, I think there's something else in play when we're talking about animals, that is: most of what happens happens only in our heads. It's not like animals don't suffer or don't experience fear - they all do, pain and fear are natural mechanisms of protection from external danger - but surely they don't even come close to the kind of awareness of life that we experience. While our technical and intellectual superiority allows us to breed them for our own sustenance, it's our mind as well that allows us to feel empathy towards them, or get attached to single creatures and humanize them in our point of view. While it's not right to consider animals only "things", it's not right to consider them human beings either. These two extremes represent our easiest ways to see them, but they are both wrong to an extent. I think Hachiken's struggle is to find that middle point: remind constantly to himself, even by experiencing attachment and suffering, that animals are NOT things, but still, do not give away his position as a human being, or devalue it in favour of animals. It's a sounder and more balanced position than that of those specific self-righteous vegans who call "assassins" people who eats meat, for example.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Sigh, just seems like we'll be going around the mountain like this... If we haven't already...>_>

Well, show's over anyway so- Bye :3 !

[Clarste]

Originally Posted by Gan_HOPE326

However, I think there's something else in play when we're talking about animals, that is: most of what happens happens only in our heads. It's not like animals don't suffer or don't experience fear - they all do, pain and fear are natural mechanisms of protection from external danger - but surely they don't even come close to the kind of awareness of life that we experience. While our technical and intellectual superiority allows us to breed them for our own sustenance, it's our mind as well that allows us to feel empathy towards them, or get attached to single creatures and humanize them in our point of view. While it's not right to consider animals only "things", it's not right to consider them human beings either. These two extremes represent our easiest ways to see them, but they are both wrong to an extent. I think Hachiken's struggle is to find that middle point: remind constantly to himself, even by experiencing attachment and suffering, that animals are NOT things, but still, do not give away his position as a human being, or devalue it in favour of animals. It's a sounder and more balanced position than that of those specific self-righteous vegans who call "assassins" people who eats meat, for example.

"A dog looks up to humans, a cat looks down on them, but a pig will look you in the eye and see an equal." -the show in the question

Anyway, I think making a spectrum with "human" on one end and "object" on the other is missing the point just as much, and perhaps more dangerously. Once you start sorting sentience on an algorithm like that, it's only a short leap to say that mentally retarded people, or some whole ethnic group, or... babies... aren't fully "human" and therefore don't deserve human rights. Heck, maybe the people who score below me on an IQ test are edible? I don't think it's rationally justifiable to assign value to human intelligence alone. Unless you want to eat babies. For the record, adult pigs are smarter than human babies.

You could go the other way and say "humans are humans, and pigs are pigs" but then you've already left your pretense of moral justification. If humans are humans and pig are pigs, then surely there's nothing wrong with pigs slaughtering humans, right? I mean, the human perspective is by hypothesis nothing like a pig, so there's no reason for a pig to feel guilty. Which, well, maybe you'll accept as true. But in that case we're not "justified" in killing pigs because they're lesser than us, we're just overpowering them because we're stronger. And maybe there's nothing wrong with that, except wars and slavery and whatnot.

But didn't we just say humans are humans? Well, sure, but unless you extend your sense of kinship to an unreasonable level there's nothing that makes humanity fundamentally adverse to killing each other. Ultimately it comes down to either two theories: social contract ("I'm afraid of being killed so I'll agree to mutually avoid killing") or basic empathy. And clearly people are also capable of empathizing with animals. So yeah.

Moral of the story: don't eat other humans because you'll get Kuru. This is a prion disorder that spreads by eating nerve tissue of the same species. Humanity, in our infinite cruelty, decided to recycle inedible cattle parts by grinding them up and feeding them to other cattle, which is a huge contributor in the spread of Mad Cow Disease, which is basically the same thing as Kuru, but for cows. Eating your own kind is just plain unhealthy. So eat pigs instead. But love them.

[FrejaOne]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

If anything the fact that he's seriously putting in the effort to try to do so is something to be admired.

He's trying to do what exactly? Raise and kill animals for meat? How is that different from what others do?

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

As for the 'point' of this arc, I've been repeating it.
You're just ignoring it in favour of your own 'version'.

I can't help it if the point makes no sense. Unless the point was "he needs to stop being silly and start doing what all other good people do here."

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

First off there is nothing 'heroic' about his decision itself because it's a personal choice that he has taken upon himself I don't know why you would even think that.

Because of the way it is dressed up in the show. With the celebration and all that.

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

The reason why the others respect him for it is because it's a difficult path to walk and that they admire him for even attempting it.

How is conforming a difficult path?

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

Does she eat that fur coat as well? Skin it herself? Raised the animal?

No, but her emotions are just as pointless, because she wants to use the animal at the end. Just like with Hachiken, pigs are still being raised for slaughter, and he helps with that personally. So why does it matter what his feelings are like?

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

Or maybe you have missed that part about accepting that people need to eat meat? Or that this is the livelihood of many people.

People don't exactly need to eat meat (with the exception of a small group of people who have specific needs), at least not as much meat as they usually eat. People mostly eat meat for pleasure and entertainment. The show itself says so by stressing just how tasty it is.
So this is just a profit-oriented industry like any other, not some kind of life-saving endeavor.

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

Because in the end he accepts it's the way of life and he embraces it, not running away.

About this, Guardian Enzo said it better than I could.

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

In some ways, him fattening it up was an attempt to make his life worth more, and I don't mean it in terms of just the money.

If the value of a pig's life is how much they weight, then he wants Butadon to be a 'good pig' in the eyes of people.

This is just ridiculous. He's fattening Butadon up so his meat is more expensive, and this is somehow a gesture of love?
He's dead meat anyway, even if his meat is worth his weight in gold. That's exactly like Guardian Enzo said, some kind of self-delusion that allows Hachiken to feel okay about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by 340.29

One of the true aspects of the show that make it shine is growth. Growth implies mistakes are allowed (character flaws). I'm not sure how you can crucify a show on something it's designed to handle.

So where is growth in there?

And no, I wouldn't be able to eat my pet, or an animal I had a personal connection with. This is a natural human reaction, and it doesn't just apply to animals. You wouldn't get as sad about some stranger's death as you would have been if a person you know and like died. It's all about being personally related.
And so, to me, fattening up an animal while calling it cute names and at the same time imagining just how good its meat will taste is worse than simply killing some random animal for food.

[FrejaOne]

I happened to come across Guardian Enzo's thoughtful review over at Random Curiosity and realized I had something else to add about not seeing the point.

If the purpose of the story is to say "it's perfectly okay to raise animals for slaughter, stop being a silly bleeding heart about it", then the story does not work as it is. Because the viewers who already share that opinion won't find anything new for themselves, they simply wasted some time watching this city kid not agreeing with the obvious and then shrugging his doubts off and eating bacon just as happily as his friends. Basically, the kind of viewer who agrees will shrug and say: so what, this is obvious.

The kind of viewers who don't agree with the message will come away annoyed or even offended, because the author played on their sentiments for so long just to end it in that ahh-tasty-meat way. There is no argument presented that can bring such a viewer over, just a gleeful disregard for his or her feelings.

So... what's the point? Those who agree don't need the whole arc, those who don't agree will be alienated even more.

[Hitenma]

Err ... every coming-of-age story is about how a kid becomes to realize the obvious, am I wrong?
This anime is about Hachiken's growth (whether you like how he grows is another matter), not to teach the viewers some moral lessons.