Anime, martials, expectations vs reality.

[Alzrius]

Sundakan wrote:

1.) Grappled Grendel and ripped his arm off.

This is an ability unavailable to a Pathfinder martial. In fact, it's only available to f!&@ing Grendel in the rules.

I have to nitpick here. The called shot rules for an arm state that, in the event of a "debilitating blow," then "If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the arm is severed or otherwise mangled such that only regeneration or similar effects can repair it."

[Lemmy]

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

If Akira Toryama was named Roberto Silva and was born and raised in Brazil when he created DBZ, would that mean DBZ is not "anime"?

That's actually part of my point.

So what is your point, exactly? I$m legitimately curious now.

To me, your previous post sounds like you were defending the notion that a show who has the art style, narrative format and tropes commonly present in anime still won't be anime if it's not produced in Japan.

[Alzrius]

Lemmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

If Akira Toryama was named Roberto Silva and was born and raised in Brazil when he created DBZ, would that mean DBZ is not "anime"?

That's actually part of my point.

So what is your point, exactly? I$m legitimately curious now.

To me, your previous post sounds like you were defending the notion that a show who has the art style, narrative format and tropes commonly present in anime still won't be anime if it's not produced in Japan.

That's certainly a legitimate position to take on the issue.

[thejeff]

Alzrius wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

If Akira Toryama was named Roberto Silva and was born and raised in Brazil when he created DBZ, would that mean DBZ is not "anime"?

That's actually part of my point.

So what is your point, exactly? I$m legitimately curious now.

To me, your previous post sounds like you were defending the notion that a show who has the art style, narrative format and tropes commonly present in anime still won't be anime if it's not produced in Japan.

That's certainly a legitimate position to take on the issue.

On the other hand, wrapping back to something closer to the original assertion:

"I'm not interested in Avatar because I don't like anime"

"Avatar's not actually anime, since it's American. Therefore, despite it imitating anime, there's no reason to think you won't like it."

Makes no sense. Sure, in a strict sense, it's not anime and there are valid reasons to keep that usage, but for a casual watcher wondering if they'd like something? Not helpful.

Which wraps us back around to the actual topic. Someone who doesn't want anime in their FRP is unlikely to be persuaded by the argument that it's an American game, not a Japanese cartoon and thus not anime by definition.

[TriOmegaZero]

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

[thejeff]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

If so, that's even weirder.

Actually liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while disliking anime because it's Japanese would be blatantly racist.

[Jiggy]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

This is the closest. Maybe I shouldn't reply since this has gotten to be quite a derail already, but you can see the issue in this example from above (adding some bolding for emphasis):

thejeff wrote:

On the other hand, wrapping back to something closer to the original assertion:

"I'm not interested in Avatar because I don't like anime"

"Avatar's not actually anime, since it's American. Therefore, despite it imitating anime, there's no reason to think you won't like it."

The closest Avatar gets to "imitating anime" is that the setting is Asian-inspired (i.e., warriors' armor resembles that of ancient China instead of ancient Europe, and people have names like "Tai Li" instead of "Jenny").

That's it. Common tropes of anime-style storytelling are largely absent (for instance, you don't have multi-episode flashback arcs), the pacing is very western, there's no casual sexism, many standard character growth paths are absent, and the characters interact with each other like westerners rather than like the Japanese. The uninformed will point to glowy magical powers, but that's actually closer to X-Men than to most anime. The selectively-informed will point to the authors having mentioned being influenced by anime, but that doesn't mean that the final product ended up being any closer to anime than it is to the various other things it was inspired by.

The genuine similarities to actual action-anime are pretty slim. All it takes for someone to assume it's anime (or just close enough to anime that they can guess whether they'll like it or not) is that it's got exotic buildings and names.

It's a matter of judging the content based on superficial appearances. People have an idea of "anime" that's (erroneously) restricted to a handful of tropes they don't like (huge swords, screaming, flashing, etc), and anything that so much as looks Asian gets lumped in as more of the same.

Had Avatar been "skinned" with more western flavors—English castles, Scottish armor, bending through the use of claymores and rapiers instead of kung-fu, etc—then nothing about it would have left anyone calling it anime (or even suggesting that it "imitates" anime).

But it's got Asian skin, so people happily assume it's that Asian stuff over there: "anime".

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

If so, that's even weirder.

Actually liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while disliking anime because it's Japanese would be blatantly racist.

Yes, it would. It's also not remotely close to the content of the post you quoted. I'm honestly baffled at trying to extrapolate what your train of thought could have been, to get from his post to yours.

[Lemmy]

Alzrius wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

If Akira Toryama was named Roberto Silva and was born and raised in Brazil when he created DBZ, would that mean DBZ is not "anime"?

That's actually part of my point.

So what is your point, exactly? I$m legitimately curious now.

To me, your previous post sounds like you were defending the notion that a show who has the art style, narrative format and tropes commonly present in anime still won't be anime if it's not produced in Japan.

That's certainly a legitimate position to take on the issue.

Sure, you can take that position... I just vehemently disagree with it. It seems pointless and xenophobic to me.

Sailor Moon wouldn't bee any less anime if it had been written and produced by a French author/company... Naruto would still be anime if it had been produced by a Brazilian author/company... And the same goes for One Piece, Death Note, Dragon Ball, etc.

Just because certain themes aren't as popular in a certain region/culture as they are in others doesn't mean those themes couldn't be used somewhere else.

[Cantriped]

Gorbacz wrote:

Maybe there is a game out there which caters better to running barefoot on clouds, swinging your sword so that mountains are torn assunder, EXCEPT YOUR SWORD DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH THESE MOUNTAINS, IT'S THE SONIC WAVE OF MANA WHICH THE SWING GENERATES THAT TEARS THE WORLD APART?

For a game system which can handle everything from A Game of Thrones to One Punch Man, you need look no further than the HERO System

Either Champions Complete, or Fantasy HERO Complete are solid products. They feature fairly easily understood rules, which admittedly require a player be able to handle a fair bit of calculation (or have a calculator handy). Each book contains a small, but fair set of examples for the genre's they focus on, and a very fair price tag for the both Book plus PDF. Either book contains everything you need to make any character or campaign setting ever described in literature or cinema, without having to dedicate an entire bookshelf to supplementary rules. And I really do mean any character or campaign setting, not just the ones the systems author's have been exposed to or approve of. You can also find software on their site for character generation that is extremely user friendly, and also a combat manager which I've heard good things about, but which I haven't personally used.

Older editions of the system are mostly out of print now, and are getting hard to find, but contained more detail. The only downside to the HERO system is that nobody knows it exists, so you'll never find a GM using it by accident, you usually have to subvert an existing group and teach them the rules.

As a bonus, If you do have questions about the HERO system, their forum community is far less toxic than this one. One of their lead authors for the previous edition (HERO System 6th, champions complete and fantasy hero complete are effectively edition 6.5) even personally answers rules questions on a daily basis.

[Lemmy]

Avatar's art-style does look "anime-ish", though... And focusing on asian martial arts and chi is something very common in anime. Obviously, it also has many elements common to western story-telling, but the show is obviously influenced by Japanese animation as well.

[Krensky]

Well, there is the philosophical question of "Would a Brazilian cartoonist write something like Dragonball, or would a French woman have written Sailor Moon?"

[Lemmy]

Krensky wrote:

Well, there is the philosophical question of "Would a Brazilian cartoonist write something like Dragonball, or would a French woman have written Sailor Moon?"

Who knows? Brazil alone has nearly 200 million people. It seems inconceivable that none of them would be capable of doing it...

In any case, my point is that if they did create it, the story'd be just as anime as it's when written by a Japanese.

Or do we have to create a new word for every piece of media from every nationality? What word do we use for action films made in Europe? What about comics made in Brazil? Games made in Germany? Paintings made in India?

Some styles are more popular in one region or another... That doesn't mean art has to be from a certain region to fit a certain style. Specially on an increasingly globalized world, where art from all around the world influences and inspires people from the other side of the globe!

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

If so, that's even weirder.

Actually liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while disliking anime because it's Japanese would be blatantly racist.

Yes, it would. It's also not remotely close to the content of the post you quoted. I'm honestly baffled at trying to extrapolate what your train of thought could have been, to get from his post to yours.

Got distracted in the middle, actually. Not intended to be a restatement of what he said.

His would be weird, particularly because it's not Japanese. Could be racist & mistaken.

Liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while hating similar Japanese things would be more blatantly so. (Though that would be shot down if I agreed that Avatar wasn't particularly influenced by anime.)

[137ben]

MMCJawa wrote:

Uh..the Greeks, at least the Greeks who first put down the original legends, didn't have any concept like the DnD concept of "Planes". The Underworld was literally just under the surface of the world, and could be reached if one traveled deep enough underground, The same with Olympus...it was located at the top of Mount Olympus, and if you could climb high enough and not get lightning bolted by Zeus, you could reach it. None of those martials needed to cast plane shift...they could just walk there.

Presumably if you were to do a straight up adaptation of Greek myth, Pathfinder martials wouldn't have any problem either reaching the Underworld or Olympus either.

Pathfinder mostly emulates DnD style fantasy, which is actually a pretty narrow category. It poorly fits almost every other type of fantasy or more specific setting in one way or another, so I don't actually think these arguments really go anywhere.

Well, sort of. In the earliest tellings, yes, they did view the underworld as just being underground, and Olympus as literally the top of the mountain. However, their views on Olypus and Hades changed over time, so by the times of the later Greeks (and the Romans) both were reinterpreted as existing outside the physical world.

[Krensky]

Lemmy wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Well, there is the philosophical question of "Would a Brazilian cartoonist write something like Dragonball, or would a French woman have written Sailor Moon?"

Who knows? Brazil alone has nearly 200 million people. It seems inconceivable that none of them would be capable of doing it...

In any case, my point is that if they did create it, the story'd be just as anime as it's when written by a Japanese.

Or do we have to create a new word for every piece of media from every nationality? What word do we use for action films made in Europe? What about comics made in Brazil? Games made in Germany? Paintings made in India?

Some styles are more popular in one region or another... That doesn't mean art has to be from a certain region to fit a certain style. Specially on an increasingly globalized world, where art from all around the world influences and inspires people from the other side of the globe!

Not what I meant.

You're suggesting that an artists culture and society has nothing, or at least very little to do with the art they produce. I find that argument suspect. While a Brazilian artist most certainly could produce art that has all the aesthetic and thematic elements of Japanese comic books and cartoons, I question whether the hypothetical Brazilian stand in for Toriyama could have produced Dragonball without having already been exposed to Dragonball. He might have made something with similar themes and character archetypes, but I highly doubt the end result from this alternate world doppelganger would be recognizably Dragonball.

[Lemmy]

Krensky wrote:

Not what I meant.

You're suggesting that an artists culture and society has nothing, or at least very little to do with the art they produce. I find that argument suspect. While a Brazilian artist most certainly could produce art that has all the aesthetic and thematic elements of Japanese comic books and cartoons, I question whether the hypothetical Brazilian stand in for Toriyama could have produced Dragonball without having already been exposed to Dragonball. He might have made something with similar themes and character archetypes, but I highly doubt the end result from this alternate world doppelganger would be recognizably Dragonball.

The same could be said of literally everyone other than Toriyama himself. I doubt even his brother (if he has any) would be capable of perfectly recreating Dragonball without being exposed to it first. Of course art (and every other human creation) is influenced by the culture from where their creators come from... That's not my point.

My point is that just because a certain art style originates and is most popular in a certain region, that doesn't mean only works from that region can fit that style.

So, yeah, while it'd be possible for Ricardo Silva to create a work of art just as anime-ish as Dragon Ball, Sailor Moon and whatever... But because anime isn't as popular (or lucrative) in Brazil as it's in Japan, that possibility is much, much lower... That doesn't change the fact that if said work of art was produced, it'd still be anime, as it has all the characteristics typical of that style.

I'm sure if you scour the internet, you'll find manga-style stories created by people from all around the world... With all the artistic choices, themes and tropes common to Japanese manga.

[Jiggy]

Lemmy wrote:

Avatar's art-style does look "anime-ish", though... And focusing on asian martial arts and chi is something very common in anime. Obviously, it also has many elements common to western story-telling, but the show is obviously influenced by Japanese animation as well.

"Influenced by"? Sure.

But remember, we're talking about "These are alike enough that they can be lumped together, to the degree that someone who likes/dislikes one will probably feel the same about the other". Making that level of comparison just based on the fact they both include Asian martial arts is like lumping together Field of Dreams and Angels in the Outfield just based on the fact they both focus on American baseball.

I mean, sure, if someone hates baseball sooooo much that it was the primary reason they didn't like Field of Dreams, then yeah, you could probably guess that they won't like Angels in the Outfield either because it also centers around baseball. Similarly, if someone hates Asian martial arts sooooo much that it was the primary reason they didn't like "anime", then yeah, you could probably guess that they won't like Avatar either because it also heavily involves Asian martial arts.

But you and I both know we're not talking about people saying "No thanks, I really dislike seeing Asian martial arts in TV shows". We're talking about people who dislike some of the action/narrative tropes stereotypically associated with a small subset of (primarily) Japanese media, mistakenly believe it to be common enough among Asian animation in general that it can be identified with the term "anime", and then dismiss any cartoon that looks the least bit "Asian-ish" because they small-mindedly assume it's going to be the same stuff.

[Sundakan]

Alzrius wrote:

Sundakan wrote:

1.) Grappled Grendel and ripped his arm off.

This is an ability unavailable to a Pathfinder martial. In fact, it's only available to f!&@ing Grendel in the rules.

I have to nitpick here. The called shot rules for an arm state that, in the event of a "debilitating blow," then "If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the arm is severed or otherwise mangled such that only regeneration or similar effects can repair it."

Those are optional rules, and seldom used at that.

[Lemmy]

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Avatar's art-style does look "anime-ish", though... And focusing on asian martial arts and chi is something very common in anime. Obviously, it also has many elements common to western story-telling, but the show is obviously influenced by Japanese animation as well.

"Influenced by"? Sure.

But remember, we're talking about "These are alike enough that they can be lumped together, to the degree that someone who likes/dislikes one will probably feel the same about the other". Making that level of comparison just based on the fact they both include Asian martial arts is like lumping together Field of Dreams and Angels in the Outfield just based on the fact they both focus on American baseball.

I mean, sure, if someone hates baseball sooooo much that it was the primary reason they didn't like Field of Dreams, then yeah, you could probably guess that they won't like Angels in the Outfield either because it also centers around baseball. Similarly, if someone hates Asian martial arts sooooo much that it was the primary reason they didn't like "anime", then yeah, you could probably guess that they won't like Avatar either because it also heavily involves Asian martial arts.

But you and I both know we're not talking about people saying "No thanks, I really dislike seeing Asian martial arts in TV shows". We're talking about people who dislike some of the action/narrative tropes stereotypically associated with a small subset of (primarily) Japanese media, mistakenly believe it to be common enough among Asian animation in general that it can be identified with the term "anime", and then dismiss any cartoon that looks the least bit "Asian-ish" because they small-mindedly assume it's going to be the same stuff.

I'd say Avatar has enough anime influence to count as anime if you want to classify it that way... The art style is very similar for one thing. It's not like manga/anime all share the exact same traits, after all... Bersek, Sailor Moon, Cowboy Bebop and Death Note are all anime... And they are all very different from each other, even though they do share similarities.

[NenkotaMoon]

Isn't ATLA and LoK both animated Korea though?

[NenkotaMoon]

Is Shin Chan an Anime?

[Jiggy]

Lemmy wrote:

I'd say Avatar has enough anime influence to count as anime if you want to classify it that way... The art style is very similar for one thing. It's not like manga/anime all share the exact same traits, after all... Bersek, Sailor Moon, Cowboy Bebop and Death Note are all anime... And they are all very different from each other, even though they do share similarities.

What conversation do you think you're having?

What do you think I said, to which "but they have similar art styles" is any kind of reply?

I don't disagree. Avatar and eastern anime do have some visual similarities.

What I don't understand is what point you're trying to make by bringing up a fact that I already discussed myself. You're really starting to make me wonder if you even know what I've said so far.

Can you, in your own words, summarize some of the content of my posts? Because if not, then I have better ways to use my time than to spew words at someone not interested in a two-way dialogue.

[Neurophage]

NenkotaMoon wrote:

Is Shin Chan an Anime?

Yes. Crayon Shin-Chan was originally a manga that started all the way back in 1990, adapted into an anime two years later, and only started airing on American TV in 2006 (technically, it was earlier, but that channel is only available in Hawaii or something).

[Jiggy]

NenkotaMoon wrote:

Isn't ATLA and LoK both animated Korea though?

Yes, the people holding the pens are Asians. That's why the animation looks like it was drawn in an Asian style. Interestingly enough, that has no influence on the content (which is usually what people talk about not liking from anime).

[Alzrius]

Lemmy wrote:

Sure, you can take that position... I just vehemently disagree with it. It seems pointless and xenophobic to me.

It's only xenophobic if you label it with bigoted sentiment like "one of the inherent characteristics of anime is casual sexism." That's not the same as noting the particularities of a culture that are reflected in their popular works.

Quote:

Sailor Moon wouldn't bee any less anime if it had been written and produced by a French author/company... Naruto would still be anime if it had been produced by a Brazilian author/company... And the same goes for One Piece, Death Note, Dragon Ball, etc.

Just because certain themes aren't as popular in a certain region/culture as they are in others doesn't mean those themes couldn't be used somewhere else.

I don't believe it's a question of "themes," per se. Rather, it's a recognition of the fact that cultures, like individuals, are a unique gestalt of their history, values, characteristics, and myriad other factors, and that this is reflected to some degree in the art that they produce. When the country in question is Japan - and the medium in question is animated work - we use the shorthand term "anime" for that.

The idea that the uniqueness that comes from this is something bad is a view I personally reject. Yes, those differences can be used as a point of hatred and divisiveness, but that's a perversion of their strengths, rather than being an inherent quality of them. By that same token, suggesting that that uniqueness is false (e.g. thinking that any recognition of differences between groups is inherently bigoted and needs to stop) and should be torn down does a disservice as well, since it throws away something special just because it could possibly be corrupted to a bad end.

Hence why I believe that "anime" is a term that applies only to works of animation made by and for Japan, and that's okay.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

I'd say Avatar has enough anime influence to count as anime if you want to classify it that way... The art style is very similar for one thing. It's not like manga/anime all share the exact same traits, after all... Bersek, Sailor Moon, Cowboy Bebop and Death Note are all anime... And they are all very different from each other, even though they do share similarities.

What conversation do you think you're having?

What do you think I said, to which "but they have similar art styles" is any kind of reply?

I don't disagree. Avatar and eastern anime do have some visual similarities.

What I don't understand is what point you're trying to make by bringing up a fact that I already discussed myself. You're really starting to make me wonder if you even know what I've said so far.

Can you, in your own words, summarize some of the content of my posts? Because if not, then I have better ways to use my time than to spew words at someone not interested in a two-way dialogue.

I think it's the one where where you were saying the only thing Avatar had in common with anime "is that the setting is Asian-inspired".

I do in fact know people who don't like anime specifically for the art styles.

[Nicos]

Alzrius wrote:

Quote:

Sailor Moon wouldn't bee any less anime if it had been written and produced by a French author/company... Naruto would still be anime if it had been produced by a Brazilian author/company... And the same goes for One Piece, Death Note, Dragon Ball, etc.

Just because certain themes aren't as popular in a certain region/culture as they are in others doesn't mean those themes couldn't be used somewhere else.

I don't believe it's a question of "themes," per se. Rather, it's a recognition of the fact that cultures, like individuals, are a unique gestalt of their history, values, characteristics, and myriad other factors, and that this is reflected in the art that they produce. When the country in question is Japan - and the medium in question is animated work - we use the shorthand term "anime" for that.

The idea that the uniqueness that comes from this is something bad is a view I personally reject. Yes, those differences can be used as a point of hatred and divisiveness, but that's a perversion of their strengths, rather than being an inherent quality of them. By that same token, suggesting that that uniqueness is false (e.g. because any recognition of differences between groups is inherently bigoted and needs to stop) and should be torn down does a disservice as well, since it throws away something special just because it could possibly be corrupted to a bad end.

Hence why I believe that "anime" is a term that applies only to works of animation made by and for Japan, and that's okay.

Individual people and not cultures create the art. It's true that people are influenced by the cultures and themes in his surrounding.

But Anime have been in the TVs around the world from a long time now. People that grew up seeing plenty of Anime can take anime as their main inspiration for their own art.

Though, defining Anime as "works of animation made by and for Japan" is a workable definition I don't find it to be a particularly useful one.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

I do in fact know people who don't like anime specifically for the art styles.

So do I. (I even used to be one; it grew on me.) And that's fine; people can like/dislike different art styles.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about when the thing that's disliked is the stereotypical anime content of over-the-top action (etc), and all it takes for someone to assume that a work they haven't actually seen will fall into that category is for it to look Asian (whether in art style, set dressing, or both).

When somebody looks at Asian-style drawing and says "I don't like that art style," that's fine. No issue there.

When somebody looks at Asian-style drawing and says "I don't like the type of content that I'm assuming this has," that's what I was calling "racism" earlier. (Though I can accept the earlier assertion that "racism" might be the wrong word.)

[Nicos]

We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.

[Alzrius]

Nicos wrote:

Individual people and not cultures create the art. It's true that people are influenced by the cultures and themes in his surrounding.

But Anime have been in the TVs around the world from a long time now. People that grew up seeing plenty of Anime can take anime as their main inspiration for their own art.

Individual people are the atomic units of their culture. Simply watching "plenty" of works from a culture foreign to your own, even if you find inspiration in that, isn't the same thing as being a member of that culture.

Quote:

Though, defining Anime as "works of animation made by and for Japan" is a workable definition I don't find it to be a particularly useful one.

Why not? It strikes me as being better than any alternative offered so far. "Visual style" isn't helpful because there are anime with highly distinctive pictorial elements that look nothing like other anime (e.g. Crayon Shin-chan). "Thematic elements" isn't helpful because there are large numbers of anime for which any particular theme(s) aren't found. If we hold that the term "anime" is describing something specific, then what other definitions could be considered?

[Lemmy]

Alzrius wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Sure, you can take that position... I just vehemently disagree with it. It seems pointless and xenophobic to me.

It's only xenophobic if you label it with bigoted sentiment like "one of the inherent characteristics of anime is casual sexism." That's not the same as noting the particularities of a culture that are reflected in their popular works.

Quote:

Sailor Moon wouldn't bee any less anime if it had been written and produced by a French author/company... Naruto would still be anime if it had been produced by a Brazilian author/company... And the same goes for One Piece, Death Note, Dragon Ball, etc.

Just because certain themes aren't as popular in a certain region/culture as they are in others doesn't mean those themes couldn't be used somewhere else.

I don't believe it's a question of "themes," per se. Rather, it's a recognition of the fact that cultures, like individuals, are a unique gestalt of their history, values, characteristics, and myriad other factors, and that this is reflected to some degree in the art that they produce. When the country in question is Japan - and the medium in question is animated work - we use the shorthand term "anime" for that.

The idea that the uniqueness that comes from this is something bad is a view I personally reject. Yes, those differences can be used as a point of hatred and divisiveness, but that's a perversion of their strengths, rather than being an inherent quality of them. By that same token, suggesting that that uniqueness is false (e.g. thinking that any recognition of differences between groups is inherently bigoted and needs to stop) and should be torn down does a disservice as well, since it throws away something special just because it could possibly be corrupted to a bad end.

Hence why I believe that "anime" is a term that applies only to works of animation made by and for Japan, and that's okay.

I'm not saying uniqueness is bad, that art isn't influenced by the region where it's created or that recognizing differences between groups are inherently racist (in fact, if you follow my posts around here, you'll see me seeing the exact opposite quite often).

My only point is that I see "anime" as an art style (one that originates from and is mostly produced in Japan), rather than "art style + nationality", since people from places other than Japan can and do create works of art that share all the characteristics commonly associated with anime, except for the nationality of their author. I don't see the need to use a multiple words for the same art style just because individual works of art come from different places.... It seems particularly pointless in a world as globalized as ours... Where shows are written in one place, filmed/animated somewhere else and watched everywhere. While there'll always be regional differences, all aspects of all cultures are no longer restrained to their place of origin.

Cartoons were invented in the US (I think), but I've watched many shows that I'd definitely describe as cartoon that were created in other regions of the world.

Every aspect of every culture, if disseminated enough, becomes part of a different culture... Brazil didn't create football ("soccer"), but it's a huge part of Brazilian culture (despite the lackluster performance of Brazilian teams in the last 10~20 years). Are Brazilians not playing football/soccer? Are they playing a different sport, with the term "football/soccer" only applying to the sport when it's played in England, by English players for English spectators?

[Jiggy]

Nicos wrote:

We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is age, then it's ageism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is sex, then it's sexism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is race, then it's racism.

...

Well, okay, I guess technically those are all "prejudice": judging prior to knowing. Theoretically it's not until you oppress someone that it becomes one of those "isms". But of course, they all start with prejudice, so I'm not sure I see a purpose in pointing out that being prejudiced in your thinking isn't actually [whatever]ism yet.

[NenkotaMoon]

This thread is the work of an enemy Stand user.

[Alzrius]

Lemmy wrote:

My only point is that I see "anime" as an art style

We'll need to agree to disagree then, as I find that definition to be fundamentally unable to encompass things that I believe are self-evidently "anime" (e.g. the Crayon Shin-chan example again).

[Leeroyjenkinsbat]

NenkotaMoon wrote:

This thread is the work of an enemy Stand user.

DIIOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alzrius]

NenkotaMoon wrote:

This thread is the work of an enemy Stand user.

ORAORAOROAORAORAORA!!!

[Lemmy]

Jiggy wrote:

Nicos wrote:

We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is age, then it's ageism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is sex, then it's sexism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is race, then it's racism.

...

Well, okay, I guess technically those are all "prejudice": judging prior to knowing. Theoretically it's not until you oppress someone that it becomes one of those "isms". But of course, they all start with prejudice, so I'm not sure I see a purpose in pointing out that being prejudiced in your thinking isn't actually [whatever]ism yet.

Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.

I'd say the term "bigotry" only applies when it's a hostile notion ("this group of people doesn't deserve the same respect/rights/whatever as this other group of people") rather than just lack of information/interest and/or difference in taste.

[Jiggy]

Lemmy wrote:

Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.

It's also not what I'm talking about.

[Lemmy]

Alzrius wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

My only point is that I see "anime" as an art style

We'll need to agree to disagree then, as I find that definition to be fundamentally unable to encompass things that I believe are self-evidently "anime" (e.g. the Crayon Shin-chan example again).

Sure, I don't mind agreeing to disagree. I never said I was objectively right, after all. I even accepted the fact that your position is a valid one. I just disagree with it... After all, deciding what is anime and what isn't is basically a discussion of semantics.

I only watched a few episodes of Crayon Shin-chan... And it has the type of humor most commonly found in Japanese anime, but otherwise, I'm be perfectly comfortable calling it a cartoon.

[Lemmy]

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.

It's also not what I'm talking about.

Just because I quote your posts, it doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you... I might simply be trying to expand on your point.

Your post (in the context of replying to Nicos' post) gives me the impression that you're saying that making false inferences based on <X> is "X-ism". I'm just expanding on that point and saying that's not necessarily the case... The person making the false inferences might be mistaken, uninformed and/or uninterested.

[Neurophage]

So long as we're arguing semantics, where do light novels fit into the arrangement of arbitrary definition? Technically, they are primarily made up of text and incorporate very few illustrations. Some contain no illustrations at all. However, the illustrations that they do include are typically drawn by mangaka, and many have been adapted into other media such as anime and manga. Moreover, the narrative conventions employed by some of the most popular light novels have begun influencing the narrative conventions employed by some popular anime. The reverse is also true. The light novel industry is, at this point, critically bound to the anime industry. Which raises the questions: are light novels anime? Or rather, given that in almost every instance of the word "anime" being used on this board, under very few circumstances is the person in question referring to "animated features produced and created in Japan by Japanese artists," and they're instead talking about the common American cultural perception of anime (Which is to say, they're not talking at all about a medium and its place of origin. They're talking about a collection of tropes that have entered the American cultural consciousness and are associated with that medium based on some of the most visible examples of it), the question should be "Are light novels contained within the American cultural perception of anime?"

Alzrius wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

My only point is that I see "anime" as an art style

We'll need to agree to disagree then, as I find that definition to be fundamentally unable to encompass things that I believe are self-evidently "anime" (e.g. the Crayon Shin-chan example again).

Or even better: Gregory Horror Show.

[Charon's Little Helper]

thejeff wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

If so, that's even weirder.

Actually liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while disliking anime because it's Japanese would be blatantly racist.

Have we really started calling people racist based upon the cartoons that they like? >.<

[thejeff]

Lemmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.

It's also not what I'm talking about.

Just because I quote your posts, it doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you... I might simply be trying to expand on your point.

Your post (in the context of replying to Nicos' post) gives me the impression that you're saying that making false inferences based on <X> is "X-ism". I'm just expanding on that point and saying that's not necessarily the case... The person making the false inferences might be mistaken, uninformed and/or uninterested.

Might be mistaken, uninformed or uninterested, but if they're making false inferences based on <X>, that's still X-ism. Maybe not the most extreme kind, but still...

Zheng is Asian. Asians are all good with computers, I'll get him to help with my computer problem.

Not hostile. Mistaken. Still prejudiced. Assigning the stereotypical traits of a race to the individual.

[Lemmy]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Have we really started calling people racist based upon the cartoons that they like? >.<

Jiggy's example is based on the reason why the person dislikes that cartoon, not on whether or not they dislike it... And he called the attitude racist, but didn't say said attitude is enough for someone to be considered a racist individual.

[thejeff]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

If so, that's even weirder.

Actually liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while disliking anime because it's Japanese would be blatantly racist.

Have we really started calling people racist based upon the cartoons that they like? >.<

Only if they're explicitly disliking it because of the race of the creators.

[Jiggy]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

thejeff wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I believe what Jiggy meant was 'I won't watch Avatar because it's Japanese' is wrong-headed.

If so, that's even weirder.

Actually liking Avatar because it's not Japanese while disliking anime because it's Japanese would be blatantly racist.

Have we really started calling people racist based upon the cartoons that they like? >.<

"Started"? Have you seen some of the early Disney films, and others from the same period?

[NenkotaMoon]

Hold it! I still have the right to raise… I raise you my mother’s soul.” - Jotaro

[Lemmy]

thejeff wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.

It's also not what I'm talking about.

Just because I quote your posts, it doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you... I might simply be trying to expand on your point.

Your post (in the context of replying to Nicos' post) gives me the impression that you're saying that making false inferences based on <X> is "X-ism". I'm just expanding on that point and saying that's not necessarily the case... The person making the false inferences might be mistaken, uninformed and/or uninterested.

Might be mistaken, uninformed or uninterested, but if they're making false inferences based on <X>, that's still X-ism. Maybe not the most extreme kind, but still...

Zheng is Asian. Asians are all good with computers, I'll get him to help with my computer problem.

Not hostile. Mistaken. Still prejudiced. Assigning the stereotypical traits of a race to the individual.

Not necessarily prejudiced, maybe it's just a false conclusion/undue generalization based on bad information and/or small sample group... Kind of a dumb one, of course... Since it's "common sense" (i.e.: not an actual sense, but an experience/knowledge common enough to be considered "universal") that a person's race doesn't automatically make them good with computers.

When I first came to the US, how many people do you think tried speaking Spanish to me or invited me to play soccer? They weren't judging me based on my nationality, so I wouldn't call them xenophobic, but they were mistaken (Brazil's official language is Portuguese) and/or making an acceptable, but ultimately wrong assumption (that I like soccer).

[Nicos]

Jiggy wrote:

Nicos wrote:

We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is age, then it's ageism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is sex, then it's sexism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is race, then it's racism.

...

Well, okay, I guess technically those are all "prejudice": judging prior to knowing. Theoretically it's not until you oppress someone that it becomes one of those "isms". But of course, they all start with prejudice, so I'm not sure I see a purpose in pointing out that being prejudiced in your thinking isn't actually [whatever]ism yet.

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.