-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opticflash said:


Can you tell me where is the line between calling fiction "problematic" and demanding it be banned? If I had a megaphone and claimed GTA is problematic because it encourages violence, tried to give references to studies I thought backed up the notion that games like GTA can have negative influence to society, I would face backlash from people who claim GTA shouldn't be banned. It's akin to saying "listen everyone GTA is bad for society, it's violent and encourages criminal behavior... but no no I don't want it regulated" which is comical at best. The implications of labelling something as problematic is one that advocates for censorship, whether directly from the person who issued the statement through their own admission or indirectly through shaming the authors of such fiction through condemnation and encouraging others to take a stance on censorship.

The first quote you could find did not refute anything I said about them. What I said about them is a reiteration of what they have said previously, and one quote that is not relevant to my claims about them (that they said certain fiction were problematic, said it encourages "incel" thinking, and tried to use studies they thought backed up their claims) doesn't dismiss this. I did not call them a hypocrite, but if they were then it is not with regards to advocating for censorship. It is with regards to their talking points made in favor of violent video games but against other fiction with other morally questionable content.

Energetic-Nova said:
Problematic is the word people use when they disagree with the text of the thing but don’t want to call it racist/sexist/homophobic but don’t want to actually do anything about said text... usually wanting to avoid the other words because people are so reactive to them... but now people are reactive to problematic so now people don’t use it as much. People literally do this all the time

Energetic-Nova said:
Bob lives in Brazil and lives under censorship and a tyrant. I think they have reason to believe what they have come to. People are believing propaganda. That is apart of their reality. I would give them a break.

Energetic-Nova said:
So the flaw in the thinking here is that problematic media is only problematic to those who can’t see what is wrong with the actions. When you start seeing people question if an anime that appears to be built on misogyny deny the misogyny of the work, well, that just means the show aligns with their values in that way. And it is reinforcing this negative worldview. But you cannot guaranteed how people will take it. You actually can’t predict how people take anything. But I do see people deny things which seem obviously the case on cursery glance and asking some friends.

Energetic-Nova said:
I never even heard of this anime. *shrug*. There is no outrage anywhere but here I guess.

Opticflash said:


This is almost paradoxical. If one claims a work is racist, sexist, or homophobic, are they not calling for censorship of some form, directly or indirectly? If I used a megaphone and called a fictional element racist, the consequences are (1) there will be widespread condemnation of the work, (2) the author will be criticized, even harassed, and discouraged to make work with similar themes, (3) other authors will be discouraged to make similar content. Claiming something is problematic is even worse, as it gives the impression that it's "not ok" for such work to exist. If you call a work problematic, then you are encouraging censorship of the work directly or indirectly through the consequences of labelling such work that way. If I had a megaphone and convinced the majority of people that GTA is bad for society (while never directly saying "it should be banned" or not admitting to hold that view), it is clear what its ramifications will be for its production, Rockstar, and other games with similar content in general and their producers.



Many others have called such work problematic or advocated for censorship. I do not see what you are trying to convey here; are you trying to imply it's normal to expect Bob to advocate for censorship? I do not see how your statement is relevant if not to suggest that they are used to calling a work problematic because of censorship in their country, which implies they in some sense want such work to be censored.



Barring the fiction issuing negative views about women (which the show doesn't do, it contains a scene where a woman is raped), labelling a show as "misogynistic" misses the mark entirely as people will never come to an agreement on whether a work is fitting of such a label. Only the implications are important, and the implications of labelling it such is to suggest that it influences viewers to hold such views, in which the onus is on the one making such a remark to provide evidence for. No, that people take no offense at what you believe is misogyny does not mean they are misogynists.



That isn't the only work that people are upset about. Mushoku Tensei is another one. There are just too many hypocrites when t comes to viewing morally questionable content in fiction. They do not realize they are espousing the same talking points as those "boomer" parents who think violent video games are bad for society.

Energetic-Nova said:
Is saying an anime has "bad animation" calling for the thing to be destroyed cause it sucks? Nope. Is saying a film has a factual error or a issue with cars not being from the right time period in a period piece a call for censorship? No. Does it say for the author to do better to get shit right next time? Yeah. Not the same thing as censorship. It is no better or worse than being upset when a character dies, which people also harass authors over. which I am not for. Harassment isn't the same as criticism.

Energetic-Nova said:
You said "morally conflicting" several times in this conversation which means the same thing as problematic. Why would you calling a work "morally conflicting" not be the same level of condemnation? Because it hasn't been buzz worded to death by reactionaries? Like problematic is describing this internal turmoil you feel.

Energetic-Nova said:
Sometimes you are just stating facts. Sometimes a character was racist. Sometimes a character is a misogynist. If audiences are not seeing why such a character is wrong for the things they have been doing, then it does say something about the person who is viewing.

Energetic-Nova said:
Yeah and Mushoku Tensei , people have barely risen above a whisper and it was only to say that the work was for weebs and ya know people listed some content warnings so others could avoid it or choose to watch it. That is literally all that happened in the other anime spaces I am in. Maybe cause we lack reactionaries in the other spaces I am in.

Energetic-Nova said:
According to my friend, the entire thing is rape and done for shock factor.

Energetic-Nova said:
like what does "barring the fiction issuing negative views about women" supposed to mean? like even my guys friends seem to think this anime runs on misogyny but is entertaining. "implications" yeah like.... denying misogynistic views and actions are done by characters usually implies you can't see what is so misogynistic about those things so you know, also implies it just aligns with your world view or your are ignorant.

Energetic-Nova said:
Bob is not advocating for censorship but awareness when watching problematic media. which is fine. It isn't the same as censorship.

Energetic-Nova said:
Take a gander at stuff that has been called problematic. Take note that Fakku is literally located in Portland Oregon and we actually have no Obscenity laws yet supposedly the home of the SJW/anifa/blm activist whatever buzz word this week. We have the best and freest speech. How is that possible if lefty liberals were actually for censorship? Are some people against lies presented as fact? absolutely people are against that. Especially about real people. Most reasonable people would be upset by that. But fiction? lololol Even porny fiction? god especially porny fiction?

Opticflash said:


Claiming a fictional work is bad for society, e.g. it influences bad attitudes over time, which is what "problematic" denotes, is clearly an encouragement of censorship whether through direct admission or indirectly through other people taking a stance on the matter. To suggest that it's in the same category as "bad amination" or cars being outdated is intellectually dishonest, as it is not saying it is detrimental to society, but the viewer's own dissatisfaction about the presentation.



I stated morally questionable because some elements (the acts themselves in the fiction, not it's implications) conflicts with the moral views of the (Western) audience, not that I believe it encourages bad behavior over time. I would call GTA morally questionable because it presents criminal activities in a neutral and even positive light. I would call a 14 year old princess marrying a 24 year old noble in a fantasy world morally questionable because it portrays an element as being normal that is in conflict with the views of the (Western) audience in real life, not that I believe it has some implications on society.



Saying something is "problematic" is not a fact as it is not uniquely quantitative. It's an opinion meant to be derogatory to the fiction and authors producing such fiction. There is a sentimental notion here, one that encourages condemnation and censorship in some form. Saying "The probability of the viewer holding misogynistic views increases after consuming Redo of Healer" would be an assertion of truth which can be factual or not.



Perhaps you weren't aware, but there have been numerous threads and posts calling it problematic because it contains "pedophilia".



Regarding rape, your friend is wrong then. Episode 2 contains the MC getting raped (to some extent episode 1 also) and conducting revenge rape with the scene lasting a few minutes. Episode 5 contains a scene where a woman had sex under the influence of an aphrodisiac. The rest of the episodes (and the majority of the scenes in those episode) are about the MC's plot for revenge. Regarding shock factor, I do not know what your friend is complaining about; the entire horror genre is done for shock factor.



The argument isn't "is the MC misogynistic?", it's "is the show misogynistic?". Disagreeing that the show is misogynistic does not mean one holds misogynistic views. The MC has not shown to be misogynistic. Ask your friend why he says the show is misogynistic; he'll probably say something like "a woman was raped and sexualized", or "it's just incel fantasy".



Aware of what exactly? That it's problematic? If one claims it's problematic with the sole purpose to raise awareness that it's problematic, then it amounts to nothing as problematic wouldn't be defined in this case.



If I stated pornography is problematic in that it influences bad views of sex (particularly against women), sexual violence and abuse, and exploitative behavior of sex workers, am I not encouraging (whether intentional or not, direct or indirect) less consumption and production of pornography in general?

Energetic-Nova said:
I mean I can say yeah Sailor Moon is problematic because it contains Adult x Minor relationships that are heavily romanticized. Still love Sailor Moon tho. I heavily supported the uncensored release.

Energetic-Nova said:
Was your negative review on the anime you gave a negative review for intended to cause less consumption of that work? Is that tantamount to censorship? Yes or no.

And how is criticism of a show for being problematic any different than the criticism you gave an anime 3/10 for? How is "problematic" worst than your criticisms about realism. Are you not encouraging less people to watch that show?

Energetic-Nova said:
Have people not picked up an unfounded belief that trans women are out to attack cis women in bathrooms despite very little basis in reality? (yet very heavy depiction in fiction?)

Energetic-Nova said:
Here is another problematic thing that is in a lot of fiction. Goldfish in bowls. That is problematic if people watch that and don't check to see if that is actually how you care for goldfish. And yes, people are seriously that stupid. People often see imagery of Beta fish or goldfish at a wedding or at a Carnival and thing that is a great idea for their own wedding. But every fish needs a home at the end of the night and fish need care like any pet does. Goldfish mostly belong in ponds or very large tanks. And Beta requires heated and filtered tanks. People do this cause they saw it on TV. How many carnivals have you been to that had such a prize? And this is just entertainment.

Opticflash said:


Then you are using the wrong terminology. To claim it's problematic is to give the notion that it's bad for society in general. You can claim it has themes that are morally questionable in real life to the common viewer.



Of course not as I am not calling for condemnation of such work and/or the authors producing such work. You are making false equivalencies here as I am not saying it has a negative impact on society in the form of shaping social attitudes or encouraging morally depraved acts in real life. That's what problematic implies; negative influences to real life, real world consequences on how people see the world, endorsing bad behavior, etc. Criticizing a show because the plot or characters were not captivating, the animation and sounds did not integrate well with the story, etc. gives no such notion. Do you agree with this, yes or no? In addition, I am not calling for less consumption of such work; the purpose of the review is to detail why I believe the author's story was not captivating.



I do not know of such fiction.



Calling such a show problematic is to suggest that one is unsatisfied with the presentation of goldfish in fiction which can harm goldfish in general in real life, and shows that one wishes that such fiction did not portray the care for goldfish in that manner. While it is not a direct message for banning of such depictions, it gives the message to producers that what they are doing is harmful, and to the audience that they should pressure producers to not make such work as it has implications in real life.

Energetic-Nova said:


Because it does have implications in real life. Which is also why we ask people to acknowledge when something is problematic. Because if you know it’s problematic, then you won’t do it. You know that that is something that’s only in fiction, it’s not applicable to real world people or real world animals, and so you’re not a part of the problem. The goldfish in a bowl just looks nice. It’s aesthetically pleasing. Goldfish were only put in bowls in order to show them off.

When you can acknowledge that some thing is only good if it’s animated, or it’s only OK in fiction, or this is an outdated notion, you won’t be part of the problem. That’s what problematic is about. Not everyone who views the goldfish in a bowl is going to think that goldfish belong in a bowl. Some people will know that it just makes fictional sense to put goldfish in a bowl.

I’m not calling to ban works of fiction which depict goldfish in bowls. I am calling for people to be knowledgeable about goldfish and goldfish care. To not abuse the goldfish in real life.

If you’re an adult maybe don’t date a 14-year-old. It’s unethical. Morally questionable. Gross. By in fiction it can be a nice fantasy for children. And when you’re an adult you can remember feeling that way.

In the case of Loli, they are played by adults, no real child was involved. The characters don’t behave as children. It is more like daddy Dom and little girl and then it is like anything in a more literal sense.

Opticflash said:


If you call something problematic, are you not, intent or no intent, discouraging such works from being produced? Let's take the goldfish example, you call depiction of goldfish in a bowl problematic. Whether it is your intention or not to outright call for a ban such depictions, are you not expecting that other people will take note of your dissatisfaction or complaint and call for authors to be more considerate and not produce such depictions?

Furthermore, there is obviously a degree of severity in a depiction when calling a work problematic. Taking care of goldfish is not near the level of severity of social issues that affect the common man or woman. Take the pornography example again. If I said it's problematic that the porn industry gives an unhealthy view of sex, 'objectifies' mostly women, and exploits and abuses sex workers, am I not taking a strong opposition on the production of pornography or at the very minimum encouraging others to do so even though I don't say it should be banned?

You are also using the term problematic to give the notion of awareness of something in which one may be ignorant of. What reason then would one have to call a work such as Redo of Healer or Grand Theft Auto problematic? What should the audience be aware of in these cases?

Energetic-Nova said:
One. Are we talking about a cartoon goldfish or goldfish written about in a novel? A goldfish depiction which didn’t require a real live goldfish? This can change the perception. And, in the production when using a live goldfish, what is the goldfish well cared for? And did it have access to actually appropriate tank or pond? It matters what happens to a real goldfish more than it matters how a goldfish is depicted. Is the general public informed about goldfish to know not to treat goldfish that way? And will they listen to common practice of goldfish care? And how popular was this goldfish depiction?

I advocate for education not censorship. There is a difference. But I would advocate for the end to treating goldfish that way even for a film if it meant that the goldfish was being harmed for the production. But ultimately, it is actually your responsibility as a human to educate yourselves about things that happen on the screen.

Energetic-Nova said:
To answer your questions about pornography, no! Absolutely not. That is acknowledging that people are going to wank to what they wanna wank it to! but there would be a better way of doing it, a more ethical way I’m doing it without harming actual women (Or men!). And it involves education, and regulating the industry to make it safer. And also changing societal views so porn actresses and actors have means to support themselves after porn. And the ability to do something else without judgment further prior employment.

Gosh, you don’t want to see all the porn I’ve looked at. If you judge me on my porn preferences, I would look like an out right monster. I don’t believe the things that happen in my porn to be the correct things to do. I actually decided to go to drawn porn because of the problems going on in the sex work industry. Because I care about real living human beings. in the end a cartoon is not going to be harmed by the incredibly rough sex I enjoy watching. 😉

What someone who believed that just watching hentai was going to somehow cause harm have watched over 100 hentai? No.

Energetic-Nova said:
And that’s something to ask people who’ve actually watch that show. But I would assume you wouldn’t want to repeat anything that’s going on in that show. Revenge rape doesn’t really sound like the moral thing to do. And people acting like oh no that’s actually a good thing to do, isn’t really going to Imbue confidence in the people who disagree with the actions of that character.

Energetic-Nova said:
But you still haven’t answered my question: how is your criticism of how a plot goes, how characters are portrayed any different than what somebody who would call something problematic would be motivated to say? Wouldn’t you want less bad writing? Like you’re like oh man this is so cliché and boring I wish they wouldn’t do this anymore...? There’s never been a time you roll your eyes and said oh not again!

Energetic-Nova said:
Usually they’re pretty much say that it’s because it’s a stereo typical portrayal, it’s been done 100 times before. I mean, are people who are tired of tsundere and isekai really trying to censor media?