>Now that obviously is wrong and can be seen as a reason to stop watching the show Is it? I mean, what am I even looking at? It looks like some BS doodle made on an dry erase board. If not for twitter, it probably existed for less than 30 minutes before being wiped from existence. I guess I'll assume Jim Davis didn't actually doodle it but, despite him tweeting it, it's not clear to me that Roiland sketched it either. Where was this even taken? A story board room? Someone's kitchen? Ok so...I see a pant-less Barron playing VR while his fully clothed father stands behind him. It's not clear to me why he has no pants...but its also not clear to me why Homer and Peter are eating smurfs. Despite the nudity, there appears to be nothing sexual going on to or around Barron...is this really what people are upset about? Why? Is it because it shows a boy's penis? If that's the case then be sure to save some vitriol for Matt & Trey for showing Cartman's penis in season 8's *Good Times with Weapons* and for Matt Groaning for showing Bart's penis in The Simpson's: Movie (PG-13) . I'd argue that both those examples are far worse than what Roiland tweeted since those scenes actually made it into a final product and distributed globally. Whatever it is Roiland tweeted, it doesn't appear to have gone beyond a dry erase board. If the argument is that he was someone distributing child porn or pedo material, then I'd have to point right back to those two examples again and wonder if people believe those guys are responsible for creating and distributing child porn. Or if all those folks seeding torrents of that episode or movie would, in addition to digital piracy, be guilty of distributing child pornography? Is the problem that, unlike Cartman or Bart, Barron is a real person? I can sympathize with this position a bit more but my response would be the same for that of a stand-up comic filmed in a small comedy club saying something horrifically offensive. These guys are artists and sometimes they gotta crack some eggs to make an omelet and not everyone is gonna like seeing how the sausage is made. When a comic gets into a small club, they're more likely to try something new...maybe it'll be way off the mark...or maybe it'll get legs and with some polish and edit, turn into a great bit. That's what this looks like to me. Some illustrator/writer sketching out absurd things on a dry erase board for no other reason than that it may accidentally lead to something brilliant. Since it literally never made it off a drawing board (Unlike Daryl or any of the cartoons I've referenced), how angry should I really be over an artist doing what an artist does? Should a tweet of some random, absurd doodle be enough to boycott Rick & Morty? Is it so offensive that we must dismiss the creative efforts of everyone else involved in making Rick & Morty a reality? I think I'm even more convinced that this has something to do with them and little to do with protecting children from predators. I'll add that in reading the links you provided, I came across some of the pedo jokes Michael Ian Black made on twitter. Someone would be hard pressed to defend him and the content of those tweets. Unlike the R&M creators, he has a long history of child rape & pedo jokes that leave no room for misinterpretation and, because he writes kid's books, has an audience that deliberately includes minors. Jokes or not, I wouldn't leave children unattended with him.