Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Irond Bill 156] - The Japanese Anime, Manga, and Video Game Holocaust

1234568

Posts

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.

    it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores

    which sounds just fine to me

    I don't think there's anything in there about the way underage characters are presented. Just the nature of the sexual relationships presented. So if this lolicon problem has gotten so bad that we're not just worried about panty shots, but actual on screen rape or brother-fucking, then sure yeah this bill is just what the doctor ordered. But I'm pretty sure (not really speaking from experience, though) that material was already inaccessible to children, while the casual "non-sexual" partial nudity has been, and will continue to be, regarded as harmless, and extraordinarily lucrative for the studios who include it in everything they make.

    So the supposedly harmless panty-shots just get more common and more normalized, while boundary-pushing "socially deviant" relationships are less likely to be presented, due to market realities, as anything other than pornography. This is problematic.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kaliyama: well, a few pages back we discussed how Berserk, a series that delves heavily in such traumas of rape, torture, etc. as a means of depicting tragedies in its dark fantasy setting could possibly all under such regulation

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.

    it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores

    which sounds just fine to me

    I don't think there's anything in there about the way underage characters are presented. Just the nature of the sexual relationships presented. So if this lolicon problem has gotten so bad that we're not just worried about panty shots, but actual on screen rape or brother-fucking, then sure yeah this bill is just what the doctor ordered. But I'm pretty sure (not really speaking from experience, though) that material was already inaccessible to children, while the casual "non-sexual" partial nudity has been, and will continue to be, regarded as harmless, and extraordinarily lucrative for the studios who include it in everything they make.

    So the supposedly harmless panty-shots just get more common and more normalized, while boundary-pushing "socially deviant" relationships are less likely to be presented, due to market realities, as anything other than pornography. This is problematic.

    well, to my mind, crotch-shots of little girls is a lot more objectionable than tasteful depictions of gay people. i guess in the japanese imagination, maybe the opposite is true.

    i guess i'm willing to cede to cultural relativism on this point and just agree that they have the right to restrict access to their kids of some things they find objectionable.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    kaliyama wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.

    it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores

    which sounds just fine to me

    What current anime or manga series are people worried about being impacted?

    I would be absolutely shocked if the initial list is anything other than the most vile and indefensible shit. Get the creepy deviants to come out in droves defending blatantly obscene material, and when borderline cases come up in the future you'll find nobody in the mainstream who will dare to approach the subject for fear of association with the perverted basement-dwellers.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Kaliyama: well, a few pages back we discussed how Berserk, a series that delves heavily in such traumas of rape, torture, etc. as a means of depicting tragedies in its dark fantasy setting could possibly all under such regulation

    while also pointing out that Berserk has some really gruesome and disturbing imagery that synd (an adult fan of the series) wouldn't want anywhere near his hypothetical kids.

    maybe it's reasonable to expect producers of works like that to be mindful of their potential audiences? kids might want to follow the adventures of Guts but probably don't need to be exposed to an explicit demon rape on page 19

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SpectrumSpectrum Super High-School Level ??? Hope's Peak AcademyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    As noted, the creator of Gravitation was already running into issues with her publisher.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Spectrum wrote: »
    As noted, the creator of Gravitation was already running into issues with her publisher.

    EDIT: Wait, Spectrum did you get the idea that I meant Gravitation was by one of those authors? I was just citing it as an example of the Boys Love genre, to explain in shorthand that it's not to be confused with yaoi which is actual porn.

    EDIT: That said, Gravitation does deal with a plot point that a main character was raped as a teen and the trauma resulting from that and the actions the character had to take to defend himself. Could that be taken as "harmful" to kids under this act?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • SpectrumSpectrum Super High-School Level ??? Hope's Peak AcademyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Spectrum wrote: »
    As noted, the creator of Gravitation was already running into issues with her publisher.

    EDIT: Wait, Spectrum did you get the idea that I meant Gravitation was by one of those authors? I was just citing it as an example of the Boys Love genre, to explain in shorthand that it's not to be confused with yaoi which is actual porn.

    EDIT: That said, Gravitation does deal with a plot point that a main character was raped as a teen and the trauma resulting from that and the actions the character had to take to defend himself. Could that be taken as "harmful" to kids under this act?
    Oh, sorry, if that's all then I misunderstood your post. But as you noted, I'm sure under various interpretations an argument could be made that it falls under the jurisdiction of this law.

    The authors I posted about earlier are pretty obscure. I don't even recognize most of their works, but then again I'm not particularly a connoisseur of the BL genre.

  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Spectrum wrote: »
    As noted, the creator of Gravitation was already running into issues with her publisher.

    EDIT: Wait, Spectrum did you get the idea that I meant Gravitation was by one of those authors? I was just citing it as an example of the Boys Love genre, to explain in shorthand that it's not to be confused with yaoi which is actual porn.

    EDIT: That said, Gravitation does deal with a plot point that a main character was raped as a teen and the trauma resulting from that and the actions the character had to take to defend himself. Could that be taken as "harmful" to kids under this act?

    one would think that it would depend to a large degree on how it was presented.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    kaliyama wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.

    it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores

    which sounds just fine to me

    What current anime or manga series are people worried about being impacted?

    I would be absolutely shocked if the initial list is anything other than the most vile and indefensible shit. Get the creepy deviants to come out in droves defending blatantly obscene material, and when borderline cases come up in the future you'll find nobody in the mainstream who will dare to approach the subject for fear of association with the perverted basement-dwellers.

    The problem with this, is that said "vile and indefensible shit" is already being regulated by current laws and would not, in fact, be affected by this new law.

    Seriously, people. They're not looking at stricter regulation of "Tentacle Rape High School 7: Re-rapening". This is like, what if this council finds something like Cowboy Bebop or Trigun as "harmful to children"?

    工事中
  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited December 2010
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    kaliyama wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.

    it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores

    which sounds just fine to me

    What current anime or manga series are people worried about being impacted?

    I would be absolutely shocked if the initial list is anything other than the most vile and indefensible shit. Get the creepy deviants to come out in droves defending blatantly obscene material, and when borderline cases come up in the future you'll find nobody in the mainstream who will dare to approach the subject for fear of association with the perverted basement-dwellers.

    The problem with this, is that said "vile and indefensible shit" is already being regulated by current laws and would not, in fact, be affected by this new law.

    Seriously, people. They're not looking at stricter regulation of "Tentacle Rape High School 7: Re-rapening". This is like, what if this council finds something like Cowboy Bebop or Trigun as "harmful to children"?

    By my understanding they already had the ability to do that with the existing law. This new law doesn't make it easier to attack shows like that from what I've seen on it.

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    why would anyone gun for cowboy bebop among the field of japanese animation?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    why would anyone gun for cowboy bebop among the field of japanese animation?

    that indeterminately-gendered kid is a threat to public order and decency

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    By my understanding they already had the ability to do that with the existing law. This new law doesn't make it easier to attack shows like that from what I've seen on it.

    But it's the new vague wording that's concerning though. If all that happens is they take out gratuitous fanservice, fine by me. But it's up to this review council to determine, right?

    I still haven't seen anything about who actually appoints them, yet. Anyone heard anything?

    工事中
  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited December 2010
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    By my understanding they already had the ability to do that with the existing law. This new law doesn't make it easier to attack shows like that from what I've seen on it.

    But it's the new vague wording that's concerning though. If all that happens is they take out gratuitous fanservice, fine by me. But it's up to this review council to determine, right?

    I still haven't seen anything about who actually appoints them, yet. Anyone heard anything?

    Honestly everything I've seen on it has referred to sexual or pseudo-sexual acts, what part of the revision to the existing law is vague?

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    By my understanding they already had the ability to do that with the existing law. This new law doesn't make it easier to attack shows like that from what I've seen on it.

    But it's the new vague wording that's concerning though. If all that happens is they take out gratuitous fanservice, fine by me. But it's up to this review council to determine, right?

    I still haven't seen anything about who actually appoints them, yet. Anyone heard anything?

    Honestly everything I've seen on it has referred to sexual or pseudo-sexual acts, what part of the revision to the existing law is vague?

    What counts as a "pseudo-sexual act"?

    工事中
  • KhaczorKhaczor Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    By my understanding they already had the ability to do that with the existing law. This new law doesn't make it easier to attack shows like that from what I've seen on it.

    But it's the new vague wording that's concerning though. If all that happens is they take out gratuitous fanservice, fine by me. But it's up to this review council to determine, right?

    I still haven't seen anything about who actually appoints them, yet. Anyone heard anything?

    Honestly everything I've seen on it has referred to sexual or pseudo-sexual acts, what part of the revision to the existing law is vague?

    What counts as a "pseudo-sexual act"?

    Ass to mouth?

    On the note of who appoints, I believe it was the Tokyo mayor or his office. Appointments, mostly to old men sinecure bureaucrats who I argue are way behind on deciding definitions of whats appropriate to the majority of society.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Kaliyama: well, a few pages back we discussed how Berserk, a series that delves heavily in such traumas of rape, torture, etc. as a means of depicting tragedies in its dark fantasy setting could possibly all under such regulation

    while also pointing out that Berserk has some really gruesome and disturbing imagery that synd (an adult fan of the series) wouldn't want anywhere near his hypothetical kids.

    maybe it's reasonable to expect producers of works like that to be mindful of their potential audiences? kids might want to follow the adventures of Guts but probably don't need to be exposed to an explicit demon rape on page 19

    So, should we restrict the sales of R rated movies to adult-only stores? How about books targeted at adults?

    Again, I don't see why society should be made to act as babysitter.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Kaliyama: well, a few pages back we discussed how Berserk, a series that delves heavily in such traumas of rape, torture, etc. as a means of depicting tragedies in its dark fantasy setting could possibly all under such regulation

    while also pointing out that Berserk has some really gruesome and disturbing imagery that synd (an adult fan of the series) wouldn't want anywhere near his hypothetical kids.

    maybe it's reasonable to expect producers of works like that to be mindful of their potential audiences? kids might want to follow the adventures of Guts but probably don't need to be exposed to an explicit demon rape on page 19

    So, should we restrict the sales of R rated movies to adult-only stores? How about books targeted at adults?

    Again, I don't see why society should be made to act as babysitter.
    Should Berserk be sold in a regular bookstore? yeah, I think it should be allowed.

    Should it be shrink wrapped, and require the person buying it to be 17 or 18? Yeah. Most definitely.

    If there is no penalty for stores selling stuff like it to minors (either not getting access to sell the books if caught doing that), will stores enforce such a policy? Probably not.

    If the industry doesn't regulate, then the government has the right to do it. If the industry proposed a way to do it themselves, I suspect they could get the people behind them on it and avoid such laws being pushed on them.

  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    If this law were to actually ensure that the schoolgirls in those schoolgirl-adventures would wear some fucking pants, and maybe that the wind in Japanese drawings of children in skirts would stop blowing directly upward on a regular fucking basis, I would be all for it. But that isn't what this law is.

    it sounds like the law would make companies a little nervous about gratuitous schoolgirl panty shots in their for-kids titles, because they might find the title in question only sold in adults-only stores

    which sounds just fine to me

    I don't think there's anything in there about the way underage characters are presented. Just the nature of the sexual relationships presented. So if this lolicon problem has gotten so bad that we're not just worried about panty shots, but actual on screen rape or brother-fucking, then sure yeah this bill is just what the doctor ordered. But I'm pretty sure (not really speaking from experience, though) that material was already inaccessible to children, while the casual "non-sexual" partial nudity has been, and will continue to be, regarded as harmless, and extraordinarily lucrative for the studios who include it in everything they make.

    So the supposedly harmless panty-shots just get more common and more normalized, while boundary-pushing "socially deviant" relationships are less likely to be presented, due to market realities, as anything other than pornography. This is problematic.

    well, to my mind, crotch-shots of little girls is a lot more objectionable than tasteful depictions of gay people. i guess in the japanese imagination, maybe the opposite is true.

    Jesus, its like you are willfully ignorant.

    Any poster who didn't have moderator under their avatar would be infracted for this kind of blanket statement. You really should at least try and behave responsibly.

  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Will, at least try to be a bit more subtle about how much you loathe anyone who watches anime, and how disdainful you are of anything Japanese. I know restraining that kind of seething righteous fury is hard, but I'm confident you can do it!

    Really, it's pretty sad. If this exact same law were being enacted somewhere in the US, a lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, worried that it would overstep its bounds. Instead, half the damn thread is accusing anyone who cares about this law of being a pedophile.

    Shit, I'm still trying to figure out when we decided cartoon depictions of anything could be as heinous as shit is being treated in this thread. Especially since I know a lot of you play incredibly violent video games as a matter of course.

    What, exactly, is the difference between someone indulging in pedo tentacle rape fantasies, and someone indulging in violent murder fantasies, as far as harm to society goes? Hint: You don't get to answer 'lots of people think one is icky' and be taken seriously.

    The entire argument is being shifted into some fantasy world not just in one area, but in several by the pro-censorship side. You guys are ignoring or making lame excuses for the serious risk of overreach here. You're labeling anyone who cares as a pedophile to try to kill the argument.

    You're haranguing on schoolgirl shit and porn - porn this bill doesn't even touch! - when everyone else is worried about, say, the fact that One Piece pirates being criminals might be an issue.

    This is one of the saddest D&D threads I've ever seen.

  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Really, it's pretty sad. If this exact same law were being enacted somewhere in the US, a lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, worried that it would overstep its bounds.

    Yes. A lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, because people argue about everything government does. This is no different. You're going to have people support it and people who are against it. So this statement really doesn't do much other than state the obvious.

    However if something like this did come to the US I doubt it would be that big of a deal since American companies don't usually print tentacle rape porn, underage sex, incest, and shit like that. And I'm sure there will be more people supporting this bill in America than against it. Parents will read it, assume their kid could go to Borders and buy books that depict rape and will support that stuff being sold in adult only stores.

    steam_sig.png
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Ryadic wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Really, it's pretty sad. If this exact same law were being enacted somewhere in the US, a lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, worried that it would overstep its bounds.

    Yes. A lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, because people argue about everything government does. This is no different. You're going to have people support it and people who are against it. So this statement really doesn't do much other than state the obvious.

    However if something like this did come to the US I doubt it would be that big of a deal since American companies don't usually print tentacle rape porn, underage sex, incest, and shit like that. And I'm sure there will be more people supporting this bill in America than against it. Parents will read it, assume their kid could go to Borders and buy books that depict rape and will support that stuff being sold in adult only stores.

    I was specifically referring to D&D, not America at large.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    well, to my mind, crotch-shots of little girls is a lot more objectionable than tasteful depictions of gay people. i guess in the japanese imagination, maybe the opposite is true.

    Jesus, its like you are willfully ignorant.

    Any poster who didn't have moderator under their avatar would be infracted for this kind of blanket statement. You really should at least try and behave responsibly.
    No, Will is completely on the ball here. If anime-o-philes weren't too busy fellating the very dong of Japan's weirdness and calling it cultural relativism, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Ryadic wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Really, it's pretty sad. If this exact same law were being enacted somewhere in the US, a lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, worried that it would overstep its bounds.

    Yes. A lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, because people argue about everything government does. This is no different. You're going to have people support it and people who are against it. So this statement really doesn't do much other than state the obvious.

    However if something like this did come to the US I doubt it would be that big of a deal since American companies don't usually print tentacle rape porn, underage sex, incest, and shit like that. And I'm sure there will be more people supporting this bill in America than against it. Parents will read it, assume their kid could go to Borders and buy books that depict rape and will support that stuff being sold in adult only stores.

    I was specifically referring to D&D, not America at large.

    I'm pretty sure if this thread was about America and not Japan it would look exactly the same. The people that think this law is fine in Japan will think it's fine in America and the people that are upset about it in Japan would be upset about it in America.

    Again, another obvious statement. You may attract more attention to this thread because it's happening in America and, you know, actually affect the vast majority of people on the forums.

    steam_sig.png
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Ryadic wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Ryadic wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Really, it's pretty sad. If this exact same law were being enacted somewhere in the US, a lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, worried that it would overstep its bounds.

    Yes. A lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, because people argue about everything government does. This is no different. You're going to have people support it and people who are against it. So this statement really doesn't do much other than state the obvious.

    However if something like this did come to the US I doubt it would be that big of a deal since American companies don't usually print tentacle rape porn, underage sex, incest, and shit like that. And I'm sure there will be more people supporting this bill in America than against it. Parents will read it, assume their kid could go to Borders and buy books that depict rape and will support that stuff being sold in adult only stores.

    I was specifically referring to D&D, not America at large.

    I'm pretty sure if this thread was about America and not Japan it would look exactly the same. The people that think this law is fine in Japan will think it's fine in America and the people that are upset about it in Japan would be upset about it in America.

    Again, another obvious statement. You may attract more attention to this thread because it's happening in America and, you know, actually affect the vast majority of people on the forums.

    Really? Because it's been my experience here that D&D views censorship pretty harshly - even de facto censorship, even of things they don't really like. It strikes me as highly hypocritical to defend violent video games from censorship - remember the argument about M rated games and California? - and suddenly turn around and flip out over panty shots or incest.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I don't view censorship of lolicon or incesticon somehow a bad thing.
    We do have lines of human decency and those two subjects don't really belong there.
    Taste is also a huge factor.
    We aren't talking Flowers in The Attic here.
    It's like animated self-gratifying fanfics.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Ryadic wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Ryadic wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Really, it's pretty sad. If this exact same law were being enacted somewhere in the US, a lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, worried that it would overstep its bounds.

    Yes. A lot of people arguing for it would be up in arms about it, because people argue about everything government does. This is no different. You're going to have people support it and people who are against it. So this statement really doesn't do much other than state the obvious.

    However if something like this did come to the US I doubt it would be that big of a deal since American companies don't usually print tentacle rape porn, underage sex, incest, and shit like that. And I'm sure there will be more people supporting this bill in America than against it. Parents will read it, assume their kid could go to Borders and buy books that depict rape and will support that stuff being sold in adult only stores.

    I was specifically referring to D&D, not America at large.

    I'm pretty sure if this thread was about America and not Japan it would look exactly the same. The people that think this law is fine in Japan will think it's fine in America and the people that are upset about it in Japan would be upset about it in America.

    Again, another obvious statement. You may attract more attention to this thread because it's happening in America and, you know, actually affect the vast majority of people on the forums.

    Really? Because it's been my experience here that D&D views censorship pretty harshly - even de facto censorship, even of things they don't really like. It strikes me as highly hypocritical to defend violent video games from censorship - remember the argument about M rated games and California? - and suddenly turn around and flip out over panty shots or incest.

    The one that prohibits retailers from selling violent video games to minors and slaps them with a fine for doing so? I saw nothing wrong with it, and the people that do are silly geese. Just like people saying, "Don't censor my school girl pantie shots in Japan" are the silliest of geese. If a kid wants to see school girl pantie shots or wants to play GTA 4, then they should ask their parents. Simple as that.

    steam_sig.png
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I don't view censorship of lolicon or incesticon somehow a bad thing.
    We do have lines of human decency and those two subjects don't really belong there.
    Taste is also a huge factor.
    We aren't talking Flowers in The Attic here.
    It's like animated self-gratifying fanfics.

    Legislating morality is bullshit. Give me a law that actually prevents pedophiles from raping kids, or abusive incest relationships from occurring (though I'd rather that not be its own thing, and be covered by other rape laws, since I have no problem with consenting adult incest).

    Even assuming we determine everyone who likes lolicon crap to be a pedophile, that isn't actually a crime, or even immoral! Raping kids is a crime, and incredibly fucked up. But judging people for their fantasies is pretty stupid, considering something like half of all people have rape fantasies.

    And again, you're making yourself look ridiculous by arguing that lolicon or incest is somehow worse than murder.

    I know everyone here is a gamer and has this huge fucking blindspot, but everyone having it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It's not legislating morality. It's legislative ethics. Please don't use the word morality like it means something.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It's not legislating morality. It's legislative ethics. Please don't use the word morality like it means something.

    Cool. Is that all you've got, then? I mean, do you have an actual response to my post?

  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I guess someone is going to have to explain lolicon to me.

    I'm thinking it's something along the lines of, "Owning pictures of naked children is illegal, so I'm going to own animated pictures of naked children. Take that law!"

    It's pretty sick and twisted, in my opinion. But this law isn't even going to outright ban it. It's just going to sell it in adult only stores. I don't see a problem with this.

    steam_sig.png
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    It's not legislating morality. It's legislative ethics. Please don't use the word morality like it means something.

    Cool. Is that all you've got, then? I mean, do you have an actual response to my post?
    I don't typically argue against baseless appeals to emotion and misrepresentation of a priori causation but I can come up with something if you give me a few minutes.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »

    Legislating morality is bullshit. Give me a law that actually prevents pedophiles from raping kids, or abusive incest relationships from occurring (though I'd rather that not be its own thing, and be covered by other rape laws, since I have no problem with consenting adult incest).

    No laws exist to a priori prevent crime. The prevention of crime is a direct result of law enforcement. We as a society offer up a social contract, give certain bodies rights to this contract, and expect it to be enforced when it is violated.
    Kamar wrote:
    Even assuming we determine everyone who likes lolicon crap to be a pedophile

    Yes, everyone that likes lolicon is a pedophile.
    Kamar wrote:
    that isn't actually a crime, or even immoral! Raping kids is a crime, and incredibly fucked up. But judging people for their fantasies is pretty stupid, considering something like half of all people have rape fantasies.
    1. Better find a citation for that statistic champer damper.
    2. (I already brought up your misunderstood notions of morality = ethics) Is it ethical to perpetuate pedo's fantasies with easily accessible material? Are you aware that the majority of sexual offenses occur after copious amounts of sexual fantasy by the offender?
    Kamar wrote:
    And again, you're making yourself look ridiculous by arguing that lolicon or incest is somehow worse than murder.

    I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here, but I avoid playing "which crime is worse, and will comparing genocide to store theft allow me to justify doing a thing?"
    Kamar wrote:
    I know everyone here is a gamer and has this huge fucking blindspot, but everyone having it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

    Not entirely sure what you are talking about here, either.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »

    Legislating morality is bullshit. Give me a law that actually prevents pedophiles from raping kids, or abusive incest relationships from occurring (though I'd rather that not be its own thing, and be covered by other rape laws, since I have no problem with consenting adult incest).

    No laws exist to a priori prevent crime. The prevention of crime is a direct result of law enforcement. We as a society offer up a social contract, give certain bodies rights to this contract, and expect it to be enforced when it is violated.
    Kamar wrote:
    Even assuming we determine everyone who likes lolicon crap to be a pedophile

    Yes, everyone that likes lolicon is a pedophile.
    Kamar wrote:
    that isn't actually a crime, or even immoral! Raping kids is a crime, and incredibly fucked up. But judging people for their fantasies is pretty stupid, considering something like half of all people have rape fantasies.
    1. Better find a citation for that statistic champer damper.
    2. (I already brought up your misunderstood notions of morality = ethics) Is it ethical to perpetuate pedo's fantasies with easily accessible material? Are you aware that the majority of sexual offenses occur after copious amounts of sexual fantasy by the offender?
    Kamar wrote:
    And again, you're making yourself look ridiculous by arguing that lolicon or incest is somehow worse than murder.

    I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here, but I avoid playing "which crime is worse, and will comparing genocide to store theft allow me to justify doing a thing?"
    Kamar wrote:
    I know everyone here is a gamer and has this huge fucking blindspot, but everyone having it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

    Not entirely sure what you are talking about here, either.

    I'll address the first bits in a moment, but the latter part I'm talking about violent video games. Do you think it acceptable to censor - de facto or de jure - violent video games?

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Censoring is not restricting access to emotionally appropriate age groups.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Censoring is not restricting access to emotionally appropriate age groups.

    Liming this so people actually read it. This is the issue. It's not censorship.

    steam_sig.png
  • SquigieSquigie Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It's not legislating morality. It's legislative ethics. Please don't use the word morality like it means something.

    Actually, it does mean something. And this conversation reminds me of another word, one of my favorites.

    I have to say that legislating either is decidedly not cool. Treating works as porn which are not porn, no matter how creepy and distasteful, is straight up thought crime territory.
    Ryadic wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    The one that prohibits retailers from selling violent video games to minors and slaps them with a fine for doing so? I saw nothing wrong with it, and the people that do are silly geese. Just like people saying, "Don't censor my school girl pantie shots in Japan" are the silliest of geese. If a kid wants to see school girl pantie shots or wants to play GTA 4, then they should ask their parents. Simple as that.

    If you find that a store is selling inappropriate material to youngsters, do the right thing: bitch out the management. Don't get the government involved where it's not necessary.

    Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It certainly is, if by doing so you kill a work's publishability. A chilling effect on free speech isn't a good thing. Especially when what you're arguing is basically that parents shouldn't have to parent, because the government should have already handled it.

    Perhaps we have a fundamental disconnect in what we expect from parents, though.

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited December 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Even assuming we determine everyone who likes lolicon crap to be a pedophile, that isn't actually a crime, or even immoral!

    You know what? I think we're done here.

    This is a forum for a webcomic produced by a pair of fathers. It is a forum whose membership includes victims of various forms of child abuse. It is not a place where impassioned defenses of child molestation fantasies belong. Period.

This discussion has been closed.