Report Opticflash's Profile

thanks!

We know plenty of anime with good female protagonists, and we try to avoid fanservicey anime.

Precure is a really good anime, you might like it.

rare to see someone with kate in their favourites. cheers!

I see. Even though I can sympathize with those kinds of claims to some degree, in the absence of any actual evidence or numbers to support them, I can really only see them as fearmongering or appeals to morality (with the exception of suicide, a subject which actually has had research done on it). The inverse perspective- that media portraying unacceptable behavior could actually decrease such behavior in real life, by providing an outlet for people with tendencies towards those behaviors- is one I would say is equally possible, yet rarely seems to be considered, I guess because the idea of something disgusting providing a net benefit to society is unpalatable.

Having said that, I think it's also complicated by the fact that fiction has increasingly become a social activity because of the internet and fandom, and that social element has given rise to a culture where it's very common for young and impressionable people to to join a fandom(s) with only the intention of finding other people who enjoy the same thing as them, but end up being dragged down into echo chambers where it's very easy to become radicalized. Speaking from experience, as a lifelong video game enjoyer, I not only see it happen constantly but also have gotten dragged into it myself, back in the days of Gamergate. I believe that it's a consequence of certain types of people being drawn to certain types of media, that allows these sorts of echo chambers to propagate.

Of course, then we're blurring the line between how much is the fault of media, and how much is the fault of social media in particular. But it does ultimately make me think that, in this era, artists have the responsibility of handling social issues honestly and intelligently more than ever, in part to discourage certain mindsets flourishing in the fandom of their work, and this extends to crimes they want to portray.



Logic is optional when it comes to talking about pedophilia. I've seen people argue against punitive justice and the death penalty, and then support the mass extermination of pedophiles in the same breath. Nothing can surprise me anymore in discussions about it, until the day comes where someone says they're defending pedophiles because they themselves are one.

Oh, I see. I misunderstood you, then; it was my impression that you objected to the use of the word- because it implies that fiction can negatively impact society- and you disagreed with such a perspective outright. My apologies.

So, could you clarify something for me in light of that? Do you take issue with people saying something "X is being glorified"? If so, is it because, like you stated above, that you consider stereotypes far more harmful than fictional crimes?

I understand your meaning now. I did find it odd that you wouldn't bring this viewpoint up when our conversation turned to the direction of discussing people's reactions/criticisms of such content, so thank you for clarifying. I think that even if you expand it enough to cover /all/ negative reactions, it's still specific enough to be useful, since it's still referring to a certain type of context (social issues) instead of something more broad, like poor character writing for instance.

Not at all, I understand. I tend to find conversations like this quite tiring, so much so that I surprised myself by trying to engage further after my original message to you.

Like I said, since I understand your position more clearly, it's now apparent to me we had a different idea of what's actually meant by "behavioral aspects", as it's meant to be used, to the degree I'd have to retract my original (as in from the original message on the forum) stance of agreeing with you on that point.

I do ultimately think that fiction influences reality to some undefinable degree, even if the effect is not demonstrable with hard data; while I draw the line at fiction supposedly increasing crimes, I'm a firm believer that fiction increases our empathy, can have a profound positive effect on our lives, and in general is an excellent tool for spreading good ideas and knowledge. And to acknowledge that as truth, I'm compelled to also believe the opposite.

This isn't an invitation to debate this point; as I said, I find conversations like this quite tiring and I'm more or less ready to wrap this one up. I'm just trying to explain where I think the disagreement in our argument originated, a differing idea of what people mean when they talk about people's behavior changing from media, and thus what problematic implies. I do not necessarily view it as "causing an intense emotional reaction" or "reinforcing old stereotypes", though I think it's completely fair to, and I can accept the definition (of both terms).

That said, yes, my point is that people can mean a slew of different things when they use the term, and they are not all equally valid assertions, so it is unfair to discount someone's argument simply based on their choice of word.

I don't entirely agree with your new definition of problematic, since it seems like you shifted the third connotation from any kind of negative reaction caused by sensitive material, to widespread and extremely damaging reactions, but it's fine. I got what I wanted out of this conversation, which is to understand why you think of the word the way you do, and I even agree with the spirit of it, if not the letter, so I don't see any need to debate it further.

Hey,

the thread we talking on is gone. I saw your response and sent one in reply, but it seems like it got deleted shortly after. I figured I should try to finish the discussion properly, though only one part of my response really mattered, so I'm just gonna try and paraphrase what I said there.

You said that we shouldn't assume what people mean by problematic, and that problematic (if we're defining problematic content as "content that can alter behavior") can also include things like people reacting negatively towards media, such as experiencing trauma or having their mood altered. Now, I myself don't strictly agree that is what's meant by "behavior change", as I have always personally felt it to imply the fear of people emulating what they see in media, and I also think it stretches the meaning of the phrase to become a bit nebulous.

Having said that, if you think "behavior change" also covers things such as emotional damage or dissatisfaction- meaning, therefore, that "problematic" can be used to refer to media that is viewed as capable of causing EITHER a negative reaction or emulation- then yes, I fully agree with your stance on what the word means, even if we took different logical paths to arrive at it. As I said, this is the only part that really mattered, since it seems like we fundamentally agree anyways. It does change my stance on if media is capable of influencing behavior- under this description, it would most certainly be my belief that it does- but it's really neither here nor there at this point.

Yea, that girls is a idiot. A biggest clown of this platfrom. If you ever meet her ignore it. (She is everywhere.)
I wondering why she don't get ban when my friend is reported her so many time.

I will most likely choose quantum field theory since it is the most interesting. Who knows? Maybe I will instead research in string theory.

I still have time to choose which field I will invest my career in, I just like this stuff at this point.

I see. That's quite interesting. I am currently interested in quantum mechanics. But I am more interested in the theoretical part.

Judevin once said that you work in the research field. I would be interested to know what you do.

Their intention is not to doubt and learn things but straight up denying it. They will use the same claims later even after they have been debunked in front of them. That is not being "skeptical".

Oh my fucking god.......

SemillaMinoria is one big annoying idiot. I debunked nearly every possible claim he threw at me with statistics, facts and logic. But he didn't respond to them or answer my questions. And then went on about his personal life. Dude, nobody wants to know about your life. The debate ended when it went from a discussion of vaccines and its effectiveness, to the philosophical question of subjectivity, objectivity, facts, statistics, etc. and other bullshit.

And Noboru, well you described it exactly. He went on about how the covid deaths are not real. I debunked it by saying that there was a 1.5 year drop in life expectancy in the US. He said it was not significant. I legit did a calculation in front of him with basic highschool math to prove that small changes in the arithmetic mean imply big changes in the actual data. He completely ignored it.

Anyways, the thread is deleted now so I guess my mind is at rest.

1981972 was deleted, so I've deleted the direct comments referencing it as well.

Good day. I usually don't throw out my opinion on it only when I see an argument has erupted, because from there, there is no real point in saying anything. I could say something, but that depends on if I feel passionate enough.

My take on such topics is to turn to logic because irrationality causes inconsistencies, though, I do agree to some extent with both sides because it isn't entirely a logical situation in the first place. My comment was just to point out how one side doesn't understand the values one may hold in comparison to another side which seems to believe they are speaking to robots. Although, from what I see more often, I respect the latter more than the former.

>What should both sides aim to do better?
What I am seeing is a misalignment between some immoral action, A, is equal to some immoral action, B, because that is the start of the base of the argument I see consistently, such as "GTA has violence, but you don't call it bad. Though when sexual assault in anime appears, that is apparently bad", which has the usual counter I am sure you are very aware of. To me, that is a completely valid argument for the "no issues" side to have. It is inconsistent to say that "GTA = fine to have, sexual assault in anime = bad" if both have immoral behaviour from them, though, in the first place, no one is able to determine what immoral action outweighs another, because that kind of algorithm doesn't exist. It is to a point where it is actually credible to side with the "opposed" side because you aren't actually wrong in what you say. I don't mean that in a way where said immoral actions are good, but there is some magnitude that can be determined by an individual in what you believe crosses over a tipping point. You can kinda warp the logic from there.

What is something I don't take seriously however is people who believe they are absolutely right in what they say in respect to "is this going to have an impact on multiple individuals", "it is bad for society". No one here (I'd imagine) is a psychologist who has the information or even expertise to come to that conclusion. Unless someone can come forward with such information, there isn't really much to go on with an individual who insists they are right. You can only use logic and reasoning from there to say otherwise.