Fire Emblem Fates - LGBT - Censorship / Editing games for American Audiences

[GreyWolfLord]

I tried to figure if I should post this in the LGBT thread, or elsewhere. I didn't want to dilute that thread or bring possible problems there, thus bringing this to the Video Games thread (and it deals directly with a Video game as well as Censorship).

One of the things I absolutely hate is when a game is changed because of Western audiences sense of morality. Let me play the original, with all it's crude or nonsense included idiocy.

Normally, I'm absolutely against censorship or changing the game simply because Americans or those in the West have a different sense of morality. In fact, many times it really peeves me off.

However, this time it's different and I'm not quite sure what my opinion is on this yet. I am thinking it may actually be the right move and the original plot line was a terrible thing to be included in the game. Maybe that's my own stupid morality getting in front of expression this time though...something that I've hated about what causes other games to be changed.

In Fire Emblem Fates they are changing one scene (perhaps more in regards to how it's dealt with). In Fates, you can build relationships that end up in marriage and more. One of the characters is a Lesbian. If you are male, you can still build a relationship with her...however...obviously she won't find you marriage material.

You can then, without her knowledge, spike her drink with a drug which changes her perceptions and causes her to see you differently as a female. After the drink wears off, she still will be romantically inclined to you.

They are changing this for the American release, so that the "Gay Conversion" as they call it will not be an item.

Now, though part of me hates it when they change the game, and that's there, I actually also feel that the inclusion of that option in the game, (Drugging people without their permission, trying to change who they are, etc) is wrong and the correct thing would be to have it changed in the game.

Still on the edge of thinking that the scenes and situation should not be in the game, it's the right call to take it out and change it, but at the same time, my total detestation of changing games simply because we have moral differences is clouding up my judgement (not specifically this game, but any game...happens all to often).

On a broad scale I think they shouldn't censor the games for Western audiences...on the narrow scale I think that the "gay Conversion" scene should never have even seen the light of day in the first place, even in the original Japanese release.

Is this a case of my morality being the problem, or are there situations where censorship is the correct course of action?

Edit: Link to the article where I read the change was occurring....

Controversial Fire Emblem Fates Change

[GM_Beernorg]

Given that the plot portion in question is about three sand grains from date rape, I see no issue with your feeling on it Grey, I find it similarly repugnant and for multiple reasons.

Only reasonable and righteous anger as far as I can see.

[Freehold DM]

I was familiar with this from the Japanese release, and I knew it would not fly in America. This has to be one of the only times I am okay with something being removed from a Japanese game for US release.

[GM_Beernorg]

If Freehold agrees, it must be correct :)

Censorship to protect average Joe from something outside his comfort zone, not ok.

Censorship to protect all of us from needless and hurtful crud, fine by me. (as long as it is legit crud, not just labeled that way because upper middle class white America could be scandalized, I mean, what doesn't scandalize some folk these days)

[Lemmy]

That's a pretty awful thing to add to a game... But I think it should not be removed. If it's such a problem, people should simply not buy the game or ignore that portion of it.

It's much healthier to allow developers to include whatever they want in their games and then let the fans decide what is good and what isn't. And by "fans" I mean "people who actually buy/play the game".

That said, yeah... It's quite an idiotic idea to have in the game. Why not simply make the character bisexual, then?

[spectrevk]

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO. Leave it in with a disclaimer about "cultural differences", or allow the option to remove it, but when a third party starts deciding what we are and are not allowed to see, we all lose :(

[GM_Beernorg]

::shrugs:: If I knew that, I would turn it into a career and makes boat loads of cash preventing poor electronic game plot or theme choices :)

[thejeff]

spectrevk wrote:

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO. Leave it in with a disclaimer about "cultural differences", or allow the option to remove it, but when a third party starts deciding what we are and are not allowed to see, we all lose :(

It's hardly "third party" or really censorship at all. It's the company that's translating the game for the US market. They've got the rights to change it as they please. They're not being forced to do so by anything other than their good taste and sense of what the market wants.

And seriously Japan? WTF? How is that even close to okay as anything but some evil mind control option?

[spectrevk]

thejeff wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO. Leave it in with a disclaimer about "cultural differences", or allow the option to remove it, but when a third party starts deciding what we are and are not allowed to see, we all lose :(

It's hardly "third party" or really censorship at all. It's the company that's translating the game for the US market. They've got the rights to change it as they please. They're not being forced to do so by anything other than their good taste and sense of what the market wants.

And seriously Japan? WTF? How is that even close to okay as anything but some evil mind control option?

First: the company who is localizing the game for the U.S. is definitely a "third party" between the developer and the consumer.

Second: The presence of government pressure has never been a prerequisite of censorship. Most censorship is self-inflicted, motivated by fear of reprisal based on previous incidents. That's how censors work: by punishing high-visibility targets, they cow everyone else into simply doing their work for them.

Now in this case, are we losing anything of value? Not really. It's a single scene that a player could well never encounter during a playthrough, and I totally agree that the scene itself is in very poor taste, and does not appear to add anything to the narrative. But that's not the point. If we only stand for free expression when it's something that doesn't offend us, then we aren't really standing for anything at all.

[Freehold DM]

Let's not turn this into a thread dumping on Japan for doing stuff we dont like. Their social and cultural awareness is different from America's. Point out the flaw, encourage what few japanese people you know to discuss it in their country, and move on.

[Krensky]

Well, as presented in the article it could certainly be spun as realising plumbing isn't important it deciding who you love and that character who does the spiking is doing it with intent that is kind of hard to spin as bad intentions. It's still spiking a drink though.

I haven't played the game though, nor am I familiar with the scene as Freehold is.

But yeah, it's way less problematic than, say, changing Lin Lee Koo's costumes in Xenoblade Chronicles X around.

EDIT: I'm having issues putting my thoughts here in words... It's not really less or more, problematic, or maybe it's both and just different... Eh.

[Freehold DM]

thejeff wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO. Leave it in with a disclaimer about "cultural differences", or allow the option to remove it, but when a third party starts deciding what we are and are not allowed to see, we all lose :(

It's hardly "third party" or really censorship at all. It's the company that's translating the game for the US market. They've got the rights to change it as they please. They're not being forced to do so by anything other than their good taste and sense of what the market wants.

And seriously Japan? WTF? How is that even close to okay as anything but some evil mind control option?

for a while, I heard there was a movement to turn the serum into an elixir of sex change, changing your character into a female, although the rest of the game would be the same, and other characters wouldn't notice. Guess that didn't happen.

[thejeff]

spectrevk wrote:

thejeff wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO. Leave it in with a disclaimer about "cultural differences", or allow the option to remove it, but when a third party starts deciding what we are and are not allowed to see, we all lose :(

It's hardly "third party" or really censorship at all. It's the company that's translating the game for the US market. They've got the rights to change it as they please. They're not being forced to do so by anything other than their good taste and sense of what the market wants.

And seriously Japan? WTF? How is that even close to okay as anything but some evil mind control option?

First: the company who is localizing the game for the U.S. is definitely a "third party" between the developer and the consumer.

Second: The presence of government pressure has never been a prerequisite of censorship. Most censorship is self-inflicted, motivated by fear of reprisal based on previous incidents. That's how censors work: by punishing high-visibility targets, they cow everyone else into simply doing their work for them.

Now in this case, are we losing anything of value? Not really. It's a single scene that a player could well never encounter during a playthrough, and I totally agree that the scene itself is in very poor taste, and does not appear to add anything to the narrative. But that's not the point. If we only stand for free expression when it's something that doesn't offend us, then we aren't really standing for anything at all.

1)Yeah, just like an editor or a publisher is a third party between creator and consumer. And yet works get changed based on that all the time. Nintendo is already changing the work for the US audience. That's their role here.

2) Is censorship because we think customers won't like this and we'll lose money really at all similar to "fear of reprisal based on previous incidents"? Who is the censor who punished the high-visibility target and cowed Nintendo into doing this?
In cases of government censorship, self-censoring to avoid the authorities cracking down on you is indeed common, but that's not the case here, as far as I can tell.
Frankly, assuming this is a business decision, the likely alternative is to simply not translate this title.

[Alzrius]

spectrevk wrote:

I don't like that the scene was in the game in the first place, but you don't get to pick and choose when to be anti-censorship, IMO.

Very well said!

The fact is, it's easy to be in in favor of freedom of expression when the expression in question is one that you approve of. The real test comes when it's an expression that you don't like. At that point, a lot of people suddenly start coming up with reasons for why it's okay to change, remove, expel, or even destroy the thing in question.

Being against censorship means that you're against the censorship of things that you would otherwise not want to exist.

thejeff wrote:

They've got the rights to change it as they please.

The discussion is one regarding the moral/ethical dimensions of free speech versus censorship. By contrast, a discussion of "rights" regarding freedom of expression is a legal argument. These are two distinctly different topics.

Insofar as whether or not this is "really" censorship goes, I think that it is. America has amply demonstrated that it has a lot of people who are willing to work (often in coordination) to socially demonize - and even economically harm - individuals and private companies that create content that they personally don't like. Preemptively changing your work to avoid their wrath is still them acting censoriously.

[Alzrius]

thejeff wrote:

1)Yeah, just like an editor or a publisher is a third party between creator and consumer. And yet works get changed based on that all the time. Nintendo is already changing the work for the US audience. That's their role here.

Trying to present this change as being no different than any other editorial decision in the localization process is disingenuous. This isn't a case of changing something because intellectual property rights are different between countries, or lingual idioms don't carry over well between Japanese and English, or local laws require certain things to not be shown.

Rather, this is the editorial equivalent of removing the crosses from the old Castlevania games because it might upset Christians. It's preemptively trying to avoid the attention of morally self-righteous activists who will work to demonize anything that offends their sensibilities.

Quote:

2) Is censorship because we think customers won't like this and we'll lose money really at all similar to "fear of reprisal based on previous incidents"? Who is the censor who punished the high-visibility target and cowed Nintendo into doing this?

The censors are the ones who worked to make a scene like this be perceived as socially unacceptable to generate. They're the people who maintained that scenes like that were evidence of a bigoted, morally corrupt mind that hated and feared homosexuals. They censors are the people who maintained that video games have the power to shape popular morality, and so had an inherent duty to only provide content that lauds that morality and indicts that which transgresses it.

The censors are the reviewers who pushed these ideas again and again in their coverage of these games. They're the people who started petitions calling for individuals to be fired from their jobs for making content like this, and the people who signed those petitions by the thousands. The censors are the people who encouraged others never to buy anything from these individuals, the companies they worked for, or the retailers that sold their games ever again, because to do so would mean that you're signing off on hatred and bigotry, and thus become a hypocritical, hateful bigot yourself.

That's who the censors are.

[Kevin Mack]

Some interesting views on the subject

The sad truth of international cencorship.

Part 2.

[Terquem]

You know, sometimes, in literature, forms of fiction of different sorts, a character we like goes and does something we think is wrong, something we know is wrong

and suddenly we find ourselves asking

"Why did they do that?"

[thejeff]

Terquem wrote:

You know, sometimes, in literature, forms of fiction of different sorts, a character we like goes and does something we think is wrong, something we know is wrong

and suddenly we find ourselves asking

"Why did they do that?"

And that's cool. Especially when the author addresses that.

But it's a different thing when the answer is "Because the author didn't think it was wrong".
Or as apparently in this case has a character react in a way that's right out of some of the nastiest anti-lesbian tropes.

But yeah, as a general statement, apropos of nothing, that can be a great moment in fiction.

[Scott Betts]

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

[Lemmy]

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

Something offends you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive. Truth and freedom of choice are far more important than hurt feelings and political correctness.

[Scythia]

I'm indifferent to the idea of Nintendo changing a game for U.S. market release, that's such old hat. They and other game companies have been doing that as long as they've been bringing games over.

What bothers me is the comments I've read elsewhere about the scene in question. The degree of apologetics at play is disappointing. While in any other form of media, bi erasure is the norm, in most discussions of this scene, bi imposition is instead occurring. In other explanations they review the dialog from the Japanese version, and say that since the drugged character seems okay with it later, it's alright, which sounds an awful lot like saying that arousal equals consent.

I doubt anyone here thinks otherwise, but I feel the need to say: drugging someone in an attempt to get with them is not okay. That's something an evil scumbag does, not any kind of hero.

[Krensky]

Having hunted down the text, this looks to mostly be 4chan trolling Tumblr.

Basically nothing being complained about actually happens from what I can see. There's no rape (date or otherwise), no trickery (Soleil is not aware of the magic potion, but is aware of what happened from the get go).

[Lord Snow]

Krensky wrote:

Having hunted down the text, this looks to mostly be 4chan trolling Tumblr.

Basically nothing being complained about actually happens from what I can see. There's no rape (date or otherwise), no trickery (Soleil is not aware of the magic potion, but is aware of what happened from the get go).

Huh. Japeneese sexuality is seven kinds of weird to me, but if this link is to be believed, the only issue really is that they find gender much more fluid in their anime-type stories and play with it much more. Then someone in America starts spreading misinformation in the internet and bam, controversy.

So anyway, seems like there is no anti-lesbian sentiments in this, merely a very different perception of sexuality. Nothing to freak out about.

[Lord Snow]

Having said that, from my vantage point sexuality as presented in anime is extremely unhealthy and wrongheaded. But, again, that's just the way I see things and I probably lack cultural context to really understand what's going on there.

[Krensky]

Lord Snow wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Having hunted down the text, this looks to mostly be 4chan trolling Tumblr.

Basically nothing being complained about actually happens from what I can see. There's no rape (date or otherwise), no trickery (Soleil is not aware of the magic potion, but is aware of what happened from the get go).

Huh. Japeneese sexuality is seven kinds of weird to me, but if this link is to be believed, the only issue really is that they find gender much more fluid in their anime-type stories and play with it much more. Then someone in America starts spreading misinformation in the internet and bam, controversy.

So anyway, seems like there is no anti-lesbian sentiments in this, merely a very different perception of sexuality. Nothing to freak out about.

It's probably easiest to think of her as bi with her type being cute and feminine, although apparently her only S level relationships are with the hero after seeing him as a woman and a very feminine man who may or may not wear women's clothes, so she may just be straight with specific tastes. Either way, not a lesbian.

Personally, if I was the localizer I would be temped to change one line so instead of the illusion potion the main character's put on a wig and make up, but that may just be Eris whispering in my ear.

[Kevin Mack]

Okay seems like with the link Krensky provided that whats happend here is someone spread false information (Or simply mistranslated) the scene several months ago which caused a mini controversy.

Which raises the question is the scene actually being changed at all or does it just seem like it's being changed because a lot of people have the wrong idea of what the scene was to begin with?

[thejeff]

Lemmy wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

Something offends you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive. Truth and freedom of choice are far more important than hurt feelings and political correctness.

So, if their changes offend you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive.

[Lemmy]

thejeff wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

Something offends you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive. Truth and freedom of choice are far more important than hurt feelings and political correctness.

So, if their changes offend you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive.

Great logic there... "You're free to choose to buy the product... After it's been censored. No choice on whether you want the original content or not."

[Alzrius]

thejeff wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

Something offends you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive. Truth and freedom of choice are far more important than hurt feelings and political correctness.

So, if their changes offend you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive.

False equivalence. Objecting to a mindset of "change your content so that it doesn't offend me" is not reducible to "well, that's just you pushing your ideals onto me."

[thejeff]

Lemmy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

Something offends you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive. Truth and freedom of choice are far more important than hurt feelings and political correctness.

So, if their changes offend you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive.

Great logic there... "You're free to choose to buy the product... After it's been censored. No choice on whether you want the original content or not."

No. You're free to apply commercial pressure to not "censor" translated games, by not buying them, by organizing boycotts, by causing a stink on the internets, etc.

You are however not free to buy a product that the company in question doesn't want to sell. All you can do is try to convince them it'll be better for them in publicity & actual sales to do what you want.

Which are of course the same tactics you decry from the other side.

[thejeff]

Alzrius wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

Something offends you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive. Truth and freedom of choice are far more important than hurt feelings and political correctness.

So, if their changes offend you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive.

False equivalence. Objecting to a mindset of "change your content so that it doesn't offend me" is not reducible to "well, that's just you pushing your ideals onto me."

"I'm not gonna buy your stuff if I don't like it" is a fairly basic right. Expanding that to informing the company why you're not buying it is perfectly reasonable.

[Alzrius]

thejeff wrote:

"I'm not gonna buy your stuff if I don't like it" is a fairly basic right.

Even leaving aside your continued focus on "rights" - which are what you're legally permitted to do - this is a strawman argument, since no one is suggesting that you don't have the right to refrain from purchasing products you don't like.

Quote:

Expanding that to informing the company why you're not buying it is perfectly reasonable.

This is also a moving of the goalposts. Writing a letter or an email to a company to explain why you don't want to buy their game is not at all the equivalent of creating a public climate of fear of social opprobrium and organized economic coercion in order to make someone else produce the changes you want to see. That kind of action is in no way reasonable.

[Orfamay Quest]

Lemmy wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

This is nonsensical. The "free market" means someone can sell whatever they want; if the publisher wants to make changes to a product before it ships, that's a business decision that's part of the free market. That's why McDonald's doesn't sell beef burgers in India; it doesn't want the hassle and loss of customers.

Think of it this way. I, and all my friends, like X -- a lot. My roomie, however, does not -- and my roomie's friends share that opinion. At this point it doesn't matter whether we're talking about beef burgers or Japanese sexuality.

You, as a purveyer of some good, need to decide whether you want to go after my friends, or my roomie's friends, as a market. And that's the free market at work -- you can make either choice you like, but if you make the wrong choice, you will not push enough product to make your money back.

[Alzrius]

thejeff wrote:

No. You're free to apply commercial pressure to not "censor" translated games, by not buying them, by organizing boycotts, by causing a stink on the internets, etc.

Again, this confuses legal ability with moral action. You're "free" to do all of those things, in terms of them being legal undertakings. That doesn't mean that they're necessarily the morally correct thing to do.

That's leaving aside that attempting to use economic coercion to force the changes that you want to see is, by its very definition, censorship, which is why the people who are against censorship don't tend to use those tactics to begin with.

Quote:

You are however not free to buy a product that the company in question doesn't want to sell. All you can do is try to convince them it'll be better for them in publicity & actual sales to do what you want.

Or rather, you can try and convince them that doing what they want to do, free from external pressure, is better for them (and everyone else). Yes, it's better for their publicity and maybe even their sales to take the path of least resistance and so give in and accept the censors' demands, but doing so comes with its own costs.

Quote:

Which are of course the same tactics you decry from the other side.

Saying that "all actions, and therefore all sides, are equivalent" is disingenuous, because it ignores that there are very different ideals driving the debate. One side wants everyone else to change their works so as not to offend that sides' personal opinions; the other side wants everyone to be free to make whatever they want without fear of social or economic attacks.

Trying to portray these two positions as being equivalent because they both have the same avenues of action available to them (which ignores what actions they actually take) is fundamentally dishonest.

[xeose4]

Scythia wrote:

What bothers me is the comments I've read elsewhere about the scene in question. The degree of apologetics at play is disappointing. While in any other form of media, bi erasure is the norm, in most discussions of this scene, bi imposition is instead occurring. In other explanations they review the dialog from the Japanese version, and say that since the drugged character seems okay with it later, it's alright, which sounds an awful lot like saying that arousal equals consent.

I can see keeping it in or leaving it, but it's the amount of people justifying the scene or saying "it's okay, love is love!" disturbs me. Nothing about this is okay, and then to use GLBT-affirmative quotes to cover up the fact that a hetero dude just magically turned a lesbian "straight" without her consent??

As anti-censorship as I am, part of me just doesn't even want to give those people space to comment on it simply because of how much it makes my skin crawl.

[thejeff]

Alzrius wrote:

thejeff wrote:

No. You're free to apply commercial pressure to not "censor" translated games, by not buying them, by organizing boycotts, by causing a stink on the internets, etc.

Again, this confuses legal ability with moral action. You're "free" to do all of those things, in terms of them being legal undertakings. That doesn't mean that they're necessarily the morally correct thing to do.

That's leaving aside that attempting to use economic coercion to force the changes that you want to see is, by its very definition, censorship, which is why the people who are against censorship don't tend to use those tactics to begin with.

Quote:

You are however not free to buy a product that the company in question doesn't want to sell. All you can do is try to convince them it'll be better for them in publicity & actual sales to do what you want.

Or rather, you can try and convince them that doing what they want to do, free from external pressure, is better for them (and everyone else). Yes, it's better for their publicity and maybe even their sales to take the path of least resistance and so give in and accept the censors' demands, but doing so comes with its own costs.

Quote:

Which are of course the same tactics you decry from the other side.

Saying that "all actions, and therefore all sides, are equivalent" is disingenuous, because it ignores that there are very different ideals driving the debate. One side wants everyone else to change their works so as not to offend that sides' personal opinions; the other side wants everyone to be free to make whatever they want without fear of social or economic attacks.

These positions could not be more different.

I really should just stop, cause I know this doesn't go anywhere good, but I keep failing will saves.

Two main points: You're right that there are different ideals driving the arguments. I don't think you're right about what they are.
It's not about "offending that side's personal opinions", at least as they see it. It never has been. It's about representation. It's about not reinforcing bigoted social tropes (like gay conversion*). It's about ways media can do real good or real harm.
I know you don't believe that such things actually matter and I don't expect to convince you, but the other side does believe it and that's what's motivating them, not just being offended.

As for your side, it's a completely unreachable and frankly undesirable goal. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but requiring such speech to be free of consequences including "social or economic attacks" is ludicrous. Free of legal attacks certainly, but social or economic "attacks", whatever such attacks actually are, are the proper response to bigoted speech. Respond in kind - telling other people what was the problem and why you think it was a problem. When it's a large organization you're dealing with, the response needs to be organized to have any effect.

Beyond that, it's far from just the "social justice" side using these tactics nor are they nearly as dominant as you seem to think. As a silly example, wasn't there just a kerfluffle over Starbucks not having an explicit Christmas image on its cups? Or on a smaller scale, the people who've flipped out here everytime Paizo adds a LGTBQ character in something.
Of course, once you've decided that all these changes are due to the "public climate of fear of social opprobrium and organized economic coercion" then it's easy to use the same tactics to fight them and still be principled.

[thejeff]

xeose4 wrote:

Scythia wrote:

What bothers me is the comments I've read elsewhere about the scene in question. The degree of apologetics at play is disappointing. While in any other form of media, bi erasure is the norm, in most discussions of this scene, bi imposition is instead occurring. In other explanations they review the dialog from the Japanese version, and say that since the drugged character seems okay with it later, it's alright, which sounds an awful lot like saying that arousal equals consent.

I can see keeping it in or leaving it, but it's the amount of people justifying the scene or saying "it's okay, love is love!" disturbs me. Nothing about this is okay, and then to use GLBT-affirmative quotes to cover up the fact that a hetero dude just magically turned a lesbian "straight" without her consent??

As anti-censorship as I am, part of me just doesn't even want to give those people space to comment on it simply because of how much it makes my skin crawl.

Yeah, the text that was linked makes it less creepy than I first thought, but I'm still not at all comfortable with it.

It honestly wouldn't be too hard to tweak to be less creepy. The whole "so attracted to cute girls she faints" thing is weird, but not an uncommon trope in other Japanese media, at least in a slightly less exaggerated form and usually from a guy. Add in a couple earlier references to her being attracted to guys too, just less dramatically and change the way she reacts to him under the powder and afterwards just a little and it wouldn't be too bad.

[Sissyl]

Consider: McDonalds India has, by deciding not to serve beef or pork, appeased the hindu majority by making sure EVERYONE, including non-hindus, living in India can't go to McDonalds and get beef or pork. Censorship of speech and ideas follows the exact same lines.

[Alzrius]

thejeff wrote:

I really should just stop, cause I know this doesn't go anywhere good, but I keep failing will saves.

That's because you have a low Wisdom score. ;-P

Quote:

Two main points: You're right that there are different ideals driving the arguments. I don't think you're right about what they are.

I disagree. That's self-evident, but I feel that it's worth saying again.

Quote:

It's not about "offending that side's personal opinions", at least as they see it. It never has been. It's about representation. It's about not reinforcing bigoted social tropes (like gay conversion*). It's about ways media can do real good or real harm.

I know you don't believe that such things actually matter and I don't expect to convince you, but the other side does believe it and that's what's motivating them, not just being offended.

That may be the case, but I believe that that motivation is completely wrong-headed, by which I mean that it's based on a perception of reality that I don't believe matches up with what can be generally observed. I can understand that they're sincere in their belief that self-evidently fictitious media (I say "self-evidently" to contrast it with fiction that is being portrayed as truth, e.g. lies) can influence and shape popular attitudes and beliefs, but I don't believe that to be true.

The hallmark of a mentally-competent adult is that they're able to distinguish between fiction and reality. Playing violent video games does not make you violent. Seeing an openly gay character on a television sitcom will not make heterosexual viewers question their sexuality. Having a villain in a fantasy show be a member of a particular demographic will not make you hate all members of that demographic, etc.

To that end, the entire idea of "media can do real good or real harm" is a canard (and quite often a cover for simply not wanting to be exposed to people, themes, situations, etc. that they're uncomfortable with). In terms of self-evident fictional media, the idea that it has the power to reinforce anything among grown-ups who don't have problems distinguishing between what's real and what's not is a non-issue.

One side thinks that art imitates life (or rather, imitates imagination) and so should be left alone. The other side thinks that life imitates art, and because of that art needs to be controlled.

That's the debate.

Quote:

As for your side, it's a completely unreachable and frankly undesirable goal. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but requiring such speech to be free of consequences including "social or economic attacks" is ludicrous.

Even if it is unreachable, that's not at all a strike against it. A society that's free of crime is similarly unreachable, but that's not a argument for giving up on stopping crimes before they occur or investigating them after they do.

However, I strongly disagree that it's at all undesirable. No one is talking about free speech being free of consequences; that's a complete misdirection. However, there's a difference between consequences and censorious actions made by private pressure groups. Implying that consequences includes organized attempts to legally intimidate, harass, or coerce people into changing their behavior to said groups' satisfaction is, quite simply, not okay.

Quote:

Free of legal attacks certainly, but social or economic "attacks", whatever such attacks actually are, are the proper response to bigoted speech.

Attacking other people because you don't like the content of their speech is never okay. That includes organizing a group to try and undercut their livelihood, as well as trying to ostracize them from society at large.

Quote:

Respond in kind - telling other people what was the problem and why you think it was a problem. When it's a large organization you're dealing with, the response needs to be organized to have any effect.

It's not the act of organization that's the problem; it's when such an organization makes - whether explicitly or implicitly - a threat, or otherwise engages in coercion. Putting together a petition to call for changes is one thing; having that petition say that the undersigned will never again engage with that particular business until said business changes its activities to what the undersigned want is something else again.

Quote:

Beyond that, it's far from just the "social justice" side using these tactics nor are they nearly as dominant as you seem to think. As a silly example, wasn't there just a kerfluffle over Starbucks not having an explicit Christmas image on its cups? Or on a smaller scale, the people who've flipped out here everytime Paizo adds a LGTBQ character in something.

It's worth noting that nobody in this thread has talked about "social justice" anything (or "SJW" anything) before you brought it up just now, so you're refuting a point that nobody has made...in other words, made a strawman argument (again). That's why this entire point is misapplied: the sides in question are between those who think it's okay to harass content creators into changing their works so as to confirm to the harassers' views (for whatever reason), and those that think that such actions are not okay (no matter how noble the stated goal is).

Quote:

Of course, once you've decided that all these changes are due to the "public climate of fear of social opprobrium and organized economic coercion" then it's easy to use the same tactics to fight them and still be principled.

Except the people who aren't in favor of censorship aren't doing that; your assertion that they are was based entirely around re-framing the debate as one of "SJW vs. anti-SJW" instead of censorship versus freedom of speech.

[Freehold DM]

Lemmy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

What is really concerning is that people still think sparing someone's feeling is more important than allowing the free market of ideas.

Something offends you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive. Truth and freedom of choice are far more important than hurt feelings and political correctness.

So, if their changes offend you? Don't buy it. Support stuff that pleases you. Don't force or pressure others to stop using whatever it is that you find offensive.

Great logic there... "You're free to choose to buy the product... After it's been censored. No choice on whether you want the original content or not."

Considering the 80s are over and we can all buy stuff from japan via amazon, this holds no weight. I order japanese games regularly. It's not as fun(or cheap) as the good old days that I will not mention on paizo, but yeah...buy it from japan if you are so concerned.

[Lemmy]

Freehold DM wrote:

Considering the 80s are over and we can all buy stuff from japan via amazon, this holds no weight. I order japanese games regularly. It's not as fun (or cheap) as the good old days that I will not mention on paizo, but yeah...buy it from japan if you are so concerned.

I don't speak Japanese. And what happens when censorship hits something that cannot be bought overseas?

The fact that you can sidestep a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. In fact, it means the exact opposite.

[Freehold DM]

Lemmy wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Considering the 80s are over and we can all buy stuff from japan via amazon, this holds no weight. I order japanese games regularly. It's not as fun (or cheap) as the good old days that I will not mention on paizo, but yeah...buy it from japan if you are so concerned.

I don't speak Japanese. And what happens when censorship hits something that cannot be bought overseas?

The fact that you can sidestep a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. In fact, it means the exact opposite.

We're talking about a very specific issue in a very specific genre. Buying things from japan and obtaining a translation online is now easier than ever before. Localizers can now officially suck it.

[Lemmy]

Freehold DM wrote:

We're talking about a very specific issue in a very specific genre. Buying things from japan and obtaining a translation online is now easier than ever before. Localizers can now officially suck it.

Then you've missed the point of why I'm against the removal of the content, even though I think the content itself is deplorable.

HINT: It's not because of the content itself.

[Freehold DM]

Lemmy wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

We're talking about a very specific issue in a very specific genre. Buying things from japan and obtaining a translation online is now easier than ever before. Localizers can now officially suck it.

Then you've missed the point of why I'm against the removal of the content, even though I think the content itself is deplorable.

HINT: It's not because of the content itself.

Whatevs.

I can buy the original content and get money to the original manufacturer not only faster but eliminate the localizer completely- they don't see a red cent. This is why buying the original hurts localization efforts and sends a stronger message against what they are doing.