| Just a few examples to entertain for a bit, to anyone interested in a bit of a thought experiment. If not, just skip the spoiler. As a man of absolute and unforgiving relativism, I reject absolute answers, so I'll go with the no on this one. However, as a rule of thumb, I don't think there should be censorship from the state or anyone holding economic power (such as corporations), but I'm not opposed to social 'censorship', in which people voluntarily don't fund or urge others to not fund works they think are nocive, dangerous or don't match with what they want from it. An artist is entitled to their artistic freedom and have it be protected, but not free from being judged for the product of exercising that freedom. |
 |
| I would censor evil ideas such as nazism, racism and nationalism |
 |
ysphyr said: I’m pro-censorship of everything and especially of art and entertainment. “Artistic freedom” is a sham used by freaks of all sorts to cover their vile fantasies. Thankfully it seems like the world moves towards censorship. Neat. Please tell me you're trolling.... |
 |
| I think rape should be used when needed - and no one should censor it. In a medievel setting it makes totally sense for an invading army to enjoy the female populatoin of a captured village. And naturally most females won't give their consent there. |
| Let me try to give a slightly different perspective on the subject. If censorship was desirable, who should decide about its modalities? I am really uncomfortable with the idea of a national committee of so-called experts who would be responsible of censorship, especially if it was influenced by the State. It would be no other that letting a clique decide about what would be controversial enough to be censored, and what would not. Of course, censorship after a court decision makes perfectly sense to me, if one considers for example people making apologies of terrorism (reference). |
operationvalkyri said: I mostly concur with your position on it. The idea of putting a warning is also a good one, to be fair. That way, audiences can make informed decisions on whether they want to interact with those subject matters or not. @Kosmonaut I found those scenarios thought-provoking. Thank you for posting them. The answer I found myself giving for most of your questions was no, no censorship because who gets to decide what is potentially problematic and what isn't. Don't stop artists from putting things out there. Let individuals decide upon what art they want to engage with. Put warnings on art that can be potentially dangerous, don't muzzle it. The only addendum I would have is that, still, an artist has to abide by laws and, if a particular country has laws against incitement of violence or terrorism, or nazism apology, it will still apply. We could discuss whether these laws have place under society's with protected freedom of expression, but that's probably a topic for another thread lol. TsukuyomiREKT said: With Wataten! on favorites, it's either a very blatant troll or a curious case of cognitive dissonance. ysphyr said: I’m pro-censorship of everything and especially of art and entertainment. “Artistic freedom” is a sham used by freaks of all sorts to cover their vile fantasies. Thankfully it seems like the world moves towards censorship. Neat. Please tell me you're trolling.... |
|
| Yes in your basement on the low but not works pushed to the public |
 |
Kosmonaut said: Just a few examples to entertain for a bit, to anyone interested in a bit of a thought experiment. If not, just skip the spoiler. As a man of absolute and unforgiving relativism, I reject absolute answers, so I'll go with the no on this one. However, as a rule of thumb, I don't think there should be censorship from the state or anyone holding economic power (such as corporations), but I'm not opposed to social 'censorship', in which people voluntarily don't fund or urge others to not fund works they think are nocive, dangerous or don't match with what they want from it. An artist is entitled to their artistic freedom and have it be protected, but not free from being judged for the product of exercising that freedom. the 3rd example is clearly what happened to The Joker movie lol but ye boycotting is enough in most cases as a form of public censorship but then the hate will be directed to some groups like the Social Justice Warriors or in anime you get #AnimeGate to keep the normies or mainstream audience out |
deg said: Well, one can't run away from hate, dear deg. Even if you're just chewing gum, minding your own business, someone, somewhere is going to hate you for making loud chewing noises. Kosmonaut said: Just a few examples to entertain for a bit, to anyone interested in a bit of a thought experiment. If not, just skip the spoiler. As a man of absolute and unforgiving relativism, I reject absolute answers, so I'll go with the no on this one. However, as a rule of thumb, I don't think there should be censorship from the state or anyone holding economic power (such as corporations), but I'm not opposed to social 'censorship', in which people voluntarily don't fund or urge others to not fund works they think are nocive, dangerous or don't match with what they want from it. An artist is entitled to their artistic freedom and have it be protected, but not free from being judged for the product of exercising that freedom. the 3rd example is clearly what happened to The Joker movie lol but ye boycotting is enough in most cases as a form of public censorship but then the hate will be directed to some groups like the Social Justice Warriors or in anime you get #AnimeGate to keep the normies or mainstream audience out |
|
Kosmonaut said: deg said: Well, one can't run away from hate, dear deg. Even if you're just chewing gum, minding your own business, someone, somewhere is going to hate you for making loud chewing noises. the 3rd example is clearly what happened to The Joker movie lol but ye boycotting is enough in most cases as a form of public censorship but then the hate will be directed to some groups like the Social Justice Warriors or in anime you get #AnimeGate to keep the normies or mainstream audience out ye true but at least its not as strict/constant or widespread kind of censorship that a government ban will do since a boycott and gatekeeping are at least variable and just let the public or consumers fight it out lol |
| Yes absolutely. If you have something to say then say it to my face. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| art delivers a message, by definition if the message is universally agreed to be destructive or dangerous, i can see an argument against it for example, intentionally inciting violence (like a book only dedicated to furthering some fucked propaganda) obviously, this isn't an easy thing to draw a line on |
| Of course yes. The only good argument against this is the idea that fiction can be used to influence society, therefore it's necessary to put restrictions to prevent society from devolving in to a place where harm is increased. I agree that art influences reality, I think that's impossible to ignore. While some people maybe achieve a high level of separation, clearly many others do not. While I defend lolicon very aggressively, because I believe it is the front line of a greater fight against sex-negativity, particularly the modern scourge of anti-porn neo-puritanism, I don't deny that it's entirely possible for someone to have latent pedophillic tendencies combined with low levels of empathy, get in to lolicon, then end up abusing a child. But it's just as likely for people with pedophillic tendencies to be prevented from abusing by the existence of lolicon. And the same can be said for other forms of violence, not just sexual abuse. But I think one has to admit it's possible that a complete ban on lolicon very well could reduce overall instances of abuse. But then ones has to ask, is it worth restricting not just the freedom of expression of creators, but the freedom of the people to enjoy those creations? You're balancing a restriction on pleasure with a prevention of pain. And people will be very extremist on this issue, saying that ANY reduction in pain is worth giving up pleasure. But that is the road at whose end lies a cold, sterile, empty world lacking in humanity. You can take that even further and get in to the yin/yang stuff and how there's no pleasure without pain etc. There are also practical issues of implementation. This applies to violence and hate crimes also but let's stick with the lolicon example. Where do you draw the line? Who decides how narrow the shoulders need to be before it's a loli? What height? What exact ratio of head to body size? And what degree of undress and what poses count as sexualization? One could say "well, society as a whole would decide. There would be a general agreement in society and if there are grey areas then an expert, some kind of judge, would decide". There are two problems with this. The first is that it is oppression by the majority. If 40% of people perceive a character to be old enough to give the sex, well tough luck because most people think she looks too young. But going on majority isn't really achieving the original goal of removing harm. You're already choosing to censor based on a tiny percent chance of harm. But if you're deciding by majority, then what if 20% of people are still perceiving a character as being a sexualized child? There's still the small chance for real life harm, right? So is the answer to be extreme about it? And we're back down the path of the sterilized world. The answer is, of course, to create more people who can enjoy violent / sexually taboo content while posing no harm to society. Censorship is a band-aid that does not work. Fix the broken people. Don't ban steak because babies can't chew it. There is another facet to the "fiction influences reality" discussion, and that's the concept of "normalization". I don't want to write any more than I have so I'll just give a summary of my two major issues with the concept of "normalization": 1. The sort of things some people enjoy in fiction which others worry about being "normalized" are enjoyed precisely because they are NOT normal. If they were normal, they wouldn't be interesting. 2. There is a deep philosophical conundrum about the nature of morality and right/wrong going on here. If society does not perceive something as wrong, is it really wrong? Is morality a natural thing, or a social construct? I tend to lean towards the latter. People "worry" about sexualization of young girls leading to the "normalization" of attraction or even relationships with young girls. But whether the AOC is 18 or 16 seems entirely arbitrary to me. It is a social preference. So the sort of "normalization" going on here... this type of "fiction influencing reality"... well I honestly think sometimes if art is able to influence society to change and adopt new / alter old values, then maybe that's just a natural change in society and neither a good nor a bad thing? |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
| @YossaRedMage well you are going with slippery slope though when you said how far it will go or how extreme the censorship will go obviously the death penalty for example did not go extreme or escalate to all kinds of crimes in reality in fact death penalty is decreasing this days all over the world as for normalization 1. you miss the point there since normalization means more people will not see it as not normal anymore, im sure in ancient times incest is common just base on ancient Egyptian history for example 2. yes morality (ex social taboos) and positive laws are social preferences and because right now the government and the citizens promotes a healthy children growing up especially becoming productive paying tax payers then lolicons are frowned upon |
| Art is vague. If I write terrorist directives in colorful font and call it art, should it be censored? I think so. However, if it's just hateful and in bad taste, then I don't think the government should censor it, but private platforms could exercise their own freedom of speech to block content that's not conducive to their mission. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| if streamer can be sure you are legal age to watch yes of course. But in todays condiotions it is double edged sword |
 |
Kosmonaut said: Just a few examples to entertain for a bit, to anyone interested in a bit of a thought experiment. If not, just skip the spoiler. As a man of absolute and unforgiving relativism, I reject absolute answers, so I'll go with the no on this one. However, as a rule of thumb, I don't think there should be censorship from the state or anyone holding economic power (such as corporations), but I'm not opposed to social 'censorship', in which people voluntarily don't fund or urge others to not fund works they think are nocive, dangerous or don't match with what they want from it. An artist is entitled to their artistic freedom and have it be protected, but not free from being judged for the product of exercising that freedom. A rather nuanced take accounting for various factors while taking a multifold approach (though we will have a talk about this "Last Witch" part afterward). One question though, do you consider a company refusing the publication of a work for any reason whatsoever to be a type of "corporate censorship"? Now I don't think you do, but just in case, I'll note that a refusal to publish and/or platform is inconvertibly linked with social "cancellation", as this is the primary (or dare I say sole) concern at a corporate level. So agreeing with social cancellation one should be fine with companies' refusal to publish/platform based on the anticipated controversial effect it'd have had in the social sphere. |
 |
rafacanto01 said: I dont think pedophilia should be legal even when we talk about art, unless it is a criticism about it. There is some behaviours that really should not be encouraged. Ppl who has it should receive treatment, not encouragement! Same with rape. I think its fine to be used as a form of criticism, but not showed as its something okay, normal or desirable in ANY WAY. Many woman (and some men too) suffer w it and its not okay to do any kind of art as it was something cool. Its heinous. The problem for you is to define those things. People have the emotional capability to view art as fiction. It would be better for society to stress that disconnect than to cut down on any form of expression. For instance rape fantasies are insanely common and when expressed in an healthy void away from reality it's hardly impactful if some guy or girl wants to write a dojin or manga that fetishizes rape. You may find it tasteless (for me it would depend on what the intent of the story is) but they have the right to that and anyone who actually thinks that is encouraging actual rape are idiots ignoring that many of these societal issues are difficult to address which is why politicians and moral activists go after easy targets. It's not heinous and those artists are just as responsible for real life crimes as John Romero was responsible for Colombine. Anyway I am going to say mostly yes. There are some exceptions like say using it as a vehicle to actually commit crimes like calls to criminality (like encouraging actual violence to specific people) but in large there should be little impact on what an artist desires to create. People have the right to view it as terrible but they have no right to ban it. |
BilboBaggins365Jul 21, 2020 5:15 PM
Auron_ said: Yeah, you're right, I don't think that all refusals fall under corporate censorship. After all, the whole point of 'not funding a work' as a consumer is to not see more of it afterwards, and the corporations that want to cater to that audience will do just that. Kosmonaut said: Just a few examples to entertain for a bit, to anyone interested in a bit of a thought experiment. If not, just skip the spoiler. As a man of absolute and unforgiving relativism, I reject absolute answers, so I'll go with the no on this one. However, as a rule of thumb, I don't think there should be censorship from the state or anyone holding economic power (such as corporations), but I'm not opposed to social 'censorship', in which people voluntarily don't fund or urge others to not fund works they think are nocive, dangerous or don't match with what they want from it. An artist is entitled to their artistic freedom and have it be protected, but not free from being judged for the product of exercising that freedom. A rather nuanced take accounting for various factors while taking a multifold approach (though we will have a talk about this "Last Witch" part afterward). One question though, do you consider a company refusing the publication of a work for any reason whatsoever to be a type of "corporate censorship"? Now I don't think you do, but just in case, I'll note that a refusal to publish and/or platform is inconvertibly linked with social "cancellation", as this is the primary (or dare I say sole) concern at a corporate level. So agreeing with social cancellation one should be fine with companies' refusal to publish/platform based on the anticipated controversial effect it'd have had in the social sphere. By 'corporate censorship', I'm thinking more of certain monopolies *cough Disney cough* holding basically all mainstream studios one could pitch their idea to, therefore establishing an uniform 'moral requirement' across all of them, and using its economical power to prevent smaller studios from having time slots in theaters that are also airing their more family-friendly movies, ultimately leaving those works to obscurity. Also, buying smaller companies before they get the fraction of a chance of becoming a competitor. So, basically, I guess my issue is huge monopolies over IPs lol. [And lest we forget the amount of IPs some corporations buy daily without ever planning to properly market them just so it doesn't go to other willing companies. God forbid they're left out of a successful work. This doesn't have a lot to do with censorship though, just your good ole predatory business practice.] |
|
SadMadoka said: Yes for drawn/animated works; not so much for live action, for reasons that should be apparent upon cursory introspection. This, I don't think anyone wants live action loli. Luchse said: Censorship is the only way to stop mongrels from doing their own bidding. What is called modern art is in no way art but a sham instead. Such a lesser existence must therefore be cleansed from the face of earth. Entertainment industry wise I can get behind most stuff. Said mongrels are already doing their own bidding, the censorship is not only useless but often one-sided. Might as well just lift it for drawn/painted/animated works. |
 |
| I don't think we should have pre-censorship but I think that after the thing is out the creators shold be accountable for hate, lies or abuse of someone's image, maybe 1 or 2 more things but I can't think of any that don't fit in that 3 RN. Sex, death, and represatations of hate are okay, as long that it is warned before hand because it could be a unwated surprise. |
N04L1TYJul 21, 2020 9:27 PM
| heh. |
| Yes, everyone should be able to make whatever they please without being disturbed. If somebody makes a particular spicy piece of art that pisses a lot of people off, it's up to the artist to decide whether or not the potential, social, consequences are worth the risk. It should not be up to the state. |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| I'm against censorship so to answer your question: yes. |
 |
| Censorship is only ok in times when the ethics of the content are questionable to undeniable. Abuse of a real human being (vengeance porn, csem, real human torture, ect ect) But even art which promotes falsehoods ultimately does have the right to exist as much as people also have the right to not buy it and criticize it into the ground. A lot of people see people's actual criticism of a piece of art as the same as trying to censor that same art. Criticism of Nekopara's slavery themes is not the same as censoring it. I mean yeah people get angry when things are made they don't like and say it shouldn't even exist all the time just cause they didn't like it. There are extremists on all ends we could point to. I do think there is a grounds to say not allowing certain kinds of things on a platform or storefront might be the same as censorship. But it would get so murky. They could technically just sell this item elsewhere, but could they really? It gets so murky with these big companies having so much power over what can be sold... Or even the places which control if you can even get paid for adult content through their service (patreon for example) there comes a point when it is just censorship do to lack of alternatives ... It is like yeah small christian bookstore shouldn't have to sell all the books but if you are Amazon and you sell all the books, even some porny ones... but you decided some others aren't ok... yeah it is a problem. (oh and so people who are in the amazon loop example, just know they have been taking BL manga and plain ol erotic novels off their storefront for YEARS and fujoshi have had to deal with it, welcome to the club, please join fujoshi in hating their arbitrary practices,) |
Energetic-NovaJul 21, 2020 10:10 PM
The anime community in a nutshell.  |
Hoppy said: Mongrels specialise in one thing. Their own self destruction.SadMadoka said: Yes for drawn/animated works; not so much for live action, for reasons that should be apparent upon cursory introspection. This, I don't think anyone wants live action loli. Luchse said: Censorship is the only way to stop mongrels from doing their own bidding. What is called modern art is in no way art but a sham instead. Such a lesser existence must therefore be cleansed from the face of earth. Entertainment industry wise I can get behind most stuff. Said mongrels are already doing their own bidding, the censorship is not only useless but often one-sided. Might as well just lift it for drawn/painted/animated works. |
  “The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| I think as long as it doesnt discriminate a group of people it is fine |
ysphyr said: I’m pro-censorship of everything and especially of art and entertainment. “Artistic freedom” is a sham used by freaks of all sorts to cover their vile fantasies. Thankfully it seems like the world moves towards censorship. Neat. One should never assume it's other people's and not one's own fantasies that would be considered vile and outlawed. SadMadoka said: On the topic of pornography...the censoring of nearly all genitals in Japanese porn (both live action and animated) is some of the biggest BS out there. Kinda defeats the purpose... The fact that it is tied to an actual law makes me think that whoever is behind it is straight-up mentally retarded. This should give you some idea behind Japan's censorship laws. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/08/national/history/truth-hurts-censorship-media/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2013/01/06/books/book-reviews/complex-tales-of-censorship-in-20th-century-japan/ SadMadoka said: The existence of any (legal) ratings system is predicated upon an authority of some sort. In your own system, subjective assessments of where categories rank on a scale would still appoint the raters as authorities on the matter, in a sense; you merely wouldn't go so far as to recommend any age ranges. I just don't think it's practical. And I'm pretty sure most parents don't want their young kids to watch R-rated movies. It's not a scientific endeavor, at any rate. That's so arbitrary. Hillary_Clinton_ said: Nobody's using alt accounts to vote in some random poll, autist. Not everybody posts, that's all. No need to project yourself on others. There was 6 for yes almost right away in the thread. Sometimes that indicates someone voted multiple times since MAL doesn't get that kind of traffic anymore. There is other reasons behind the high amounts of "yes" though and that is because of how many refuse to believe their limitation on speech or expression isn't so due to believing it's justified and the fetishization of "free speech". |
| Nope. Absolute freedom is an impossibility in the first place. There's a line that, when crossed, infringes upon others freedom. |
| No censorship EVER? No that's a bit extreme For starters, series on TV that...well have too much sex.If they're not censored who'd have the balls to watch TV with family? deg said: lol who is voting yes on the poll when all replies here so far have BUT or exceptions to the rule kind of answers Salty people or liberal cults |
| خ |
| generally not a fan of censorship. for example radio songs would mute or pass a swear word, just makes no sense to me when you can easily youtube it and hear the words itself or murica censoring boobs but has very little censorship on violence but then theres some extreme shit like snuff films which really isnt about censorship, its simply just illegal to do and i dont think any medium should have "unlimited" freedom to do whatever they want. probably not related to censorship directly but has to do with "artistic freedom" i guess |
| I suppose to a certain extent but it's one of those things where it's like. Just becuase you can doesn't mean you should. |
| I'd say there will be censorship. I would love to have no censorship but you know, those morality freaks will come after you. ;) |
shintai88 said: By that logic almost nothing should be made public.if it can be negative or lead to extremism than I rather it be never be made public |
More topics from this board
» What are some of your favorite animals?DoisacChopper - Feb 10 |
49 |
by CalmTeaTime
»»
35 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think there should be an age limit on friendship?Thy-Veseveia - Feb 28 |
42 |
by Kamikaze_404
»»
41 minutes ago |
|
» What sort of education did you get?removed-user - Dec 23, 2019 |
48 |
by Rhaelynne
»»
47 minutes ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
679 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
2 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Do you care about your native culture?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 9 |
45 |
by Bruh69XD
»»
3 hours ago |