|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Thanks for the 10,000 views! I appreciate the popularity this topic has gotten on PYF. I think we really need to shift the responsibility on ourselves to determine what is appropriate. If the MPAA operated on some kind of rubric, and it was based on actual scientific studies about the effects of violent media and sexuality at various ages, it would have more credibility: "Best as our research shows, letting your kid see this content could mess them up". But it doesn't work that way, and its seen through a very narrow cultural lens. My concern with some forms of censorship is giving it so much financial and political power that our culture slides into some 1984-esque dystopia where anything 'un American' is subject to sanction. But on the flip side I don't think it's perfectly harmless to let kids see porn either. Exposure to porn is a common way molesters groom children to normalize sexual behavior. The type of parents that don't care if their kids see sexual content aren't always going to be the type of parents responsible enough to explain the context of what they are seeing.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:One I just remembered is the radio edit for Major Lazer's Lean On. Blow a kiss,
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:20
|
|
It's really blatantly out of place too.
|
Panfilo posted:My concern with some forms of censorship is giving it so much financial and political power that our culture slides into some 1984-esque dystopia where anything 'un American' is subject to sanction. Amusingly that's actually exactly what's happening in the UK. They're pushing hard for the new hate/terrorism speech laws to cover anything that "is against British values"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I think we really need to shift the responsibility on ourselves to determine what is appropriate. If the MPAA operated on some kind of rubric, and it was based on actual scientific studies about the effects of violent media and sexuality at various ages, it would have more credibility: "Best as our research shows, letting your kid see this content could mess them up". But it doesn't work that way, and its seen through a very narrow cultural lens. This is the logic that the MPAA uses to justify its existence (ie "It's better that we do it so the government doesn't have to"). It's got a pretty libertarian streak in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:But on the flip side I don't think it's perfectly harmless to let kids see porn either. Exposure to porn is a common way molesters groom children to normalize sexual behavior. The type of parents that don't care if their kids see sexual content aren't always going to be the type of parents responsible enough to explain the context of what they are seeing. Yeah, but at the same time, the type of parent who doesn't care about such explanations is also not likely to be attentive enough to make sure they're not being groomed, and a predator obviously doesn't care. I would argue that a greater social acceptance of sex in general and fewer taboos surrounding it would probably help in this regard actually, as it could weaken the ability of a predator to actually have that effect if kids already know about and have a reasonably healthy attitude towards sex and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
I think it should depend on the kind of sex being shown, really- if it's two people making love on silk sheets, plenty of foreplay, kissing and bedroom equality, then I for one would be all for it. Stuff where a bunch of men are running a train on a girl and the like, not to mention Japanese porn? Yeah, you're too young for that, little man!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Thanks for the 10,000 views! I appreciate the popularity this topic has gotten on PYF. Generally I am not fond of censorship involving adults in adult-oriented material. I feel pretty differently when it involves kids. The infamous recent spat of changes to Nintendo games for example is not particularly something I find particularly objectionable because it heavily focuses around the sexualization of underage characters and it's a choice between not releasing it at all or changing it to remove material that frankly just is hosed up from a non-thematic perspective. I think pretending Nazism doesn't exist or acting like seeing a boob is going to make someone murder people is silly but I don't extend that to material involving underage characters. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule. I don't think Lolita or American Beauty should be altered because they have a pretty clear and distinctive purpose rather than being mindless wank fodder. ImpAtom has a new favorite as of 19:24 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:I think it should depend on the kind of sex being shown, really- if it's two people making love on silk sheets, plenty of foreplay, kissing and bedroom equality, then I for one would be all for it. Stuff where a bunch of men are running a train on a girl and the like, not to mention Japanese porn? Yeah, you're too young for that, little man! I'm trying to imagine what the equivalent of that awful anti-anti-social behavior message would be like in a sex positive society. Because you know someone would find a way to ruin everything. ImpAtom posted:Generally I am not fond of censorship involving adults in adult-oriented material. I feel pretty differently when it involves kids. The infamous recent spat of changes to Nintendo games for example is not particularly something I find particularly objectionable because it heavily focuses around the sexualization of underage characters and it's a choice between not releasing it at all or changing it to remove material that frankly just is hosed up from a non-thematic perspective. Did I miss a post? When I hear "Nintendo censorship" I think of them demanding cross gravestones be changed to generic RIP slabs and requiring the attack dogs in Wolfenstein 3d be changed to giant rats. Blue Footed Booby has a new favorite as of 19:30 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:I think it should depend on the kind of sex being shown, really- if it's two people making love on silk sheets, plenty of foreplay, kissing and bedroom equality, then I for one would be all for it. Stuff where a bunch of men are running a train on a girl and the like, not to mention Japanese porn? Yeah, you're too young for that, little man! What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Did I miss a post? When I hear "Nintendo censorship" I think of them demanding cross gravestones be changed to generic RIP slabs and requiring the attack dogs in Wolfenstein 3d be changed to giant rats. There are a few examples. Recently a game called Xenoblade Chronicles X came out which features a 13 year old cast member. It is a game which has an extreme amount of skimpy armor as video games are known to do and they censored it by giving her exclusive versions of most of the armors toned down to be less, uh, that. I'd post pictures but see aforementioned 13 year old. It was largely stuff like adding extra black cloth or giving the character a shirt when other versions of the costumes don't have a shirt. There was another one called Fatal Frame where a scene involves a young character wearing an extremely skimpy bikini. This is actually somewhat plot-relevant (it's part of the story that she feels uncomfortable being stuck in that outfit in a horror situation) but it was pretty blatantly a thinly-veiled attempt to include a young character wearing a skimpy bikini so they adjusted it despite the fact it makes the scene make less sense as-written. It's largely stuff like that. Bravely Default had a "brave bikini' which was absurdly scanty and they made it merely skimpy (and also bumped the character's ages up though only by a year or two so I guess it depends on if 14-15 is less creepy than 13.) There are other cases of censorship which are harder to justify but also not entirely inexplicable. Bravely Second for example had a class called Tomahawak which was pretty much Generic Native American Stereotype:  So for the English version they're replacing it with Hawkeye, a Cowboy themed class instead.  For understandable reasons with the whole Redskin controversy but people have commented on the oddity of taking a Native American costume and replacing it with a Cowboy costume. ImpAtom has a new favorite as of 19:46 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:There are a few examples. I'd totally forgotten about those. I also hadn't realized the xenoblade character is actually 13. She's kind of an amorphous moeblob. For some reason that offends me more than the skimpy outfits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:There are a few examples. Well, it's better than replacing it with a Union Army soldier which would be entirely more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Didn't Xenoblade Chronicles X also have a bust slider for the character creator in Japan which is missing from western copies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Lord Lambeth posted:Didn't Xenoblade Chronicles X also have a bust slider for the character creator in Japan which is missing from western copies? Yeah, for a similar reason. The character creator basically has one option for your body type (height) and two for women (height and bust) and in the latter case you could basically replicate the 13 year old but without censored outfits so they removed it entirely. It's one of those cases where it's kinda dumb but it was also kind of dumb that it was in because in the original your options were 'height' and 'how big yo titties are' and that's about it aside from facial customization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
You gotta take the Saint's Row approach and give us a dick slider as well
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
I think ratings serve a purpose to a certain extent. I just hate how they're attached to specific ages like PG-13, R and X are. I don't see a whole lot wrong with a system that lets us know of something is heavy on profanity, sex, violence, gore or what have you - be it music or a movie or anything - just as a general guideline for concerned parents or anyone. I look at it like ingredients on food products. IT's OK to let us know what's in it. As the parent of a five year old, I realize it's my job to monitor this sort of stuff and sometimes a description helps. That way, I can decide for myself. I'm just always baffled by the ambiguity of what's considered "age appropriate" and the frequent hypocrisy of the whole thing. Off topic a bit, but the last time I went to Dave & Busters and even Chuck E. Cheese, it was a tad alarming and a bit off putting to see so many 8 year old kids shooting guns, even if it's only pretend. Almost all the game are shooters and racers, aside from the pop a shot and ski ball type games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Off topic a bit, but the last time I went to Dave & Busters and even Chuck E. Cheese, it was a tad alarming and a bit off putting to see so many 8 year old kids shooting guns, even if it's only pretend. Almost all the game are shooters and racers, aside from the pop a shot and ski ball type games. Movie theaters are exactly the same way around here in Texas. The local Cinemark used to have a beat-up Marvel Super Heroes Vs. Street Fighter machine, but that's been gone for years and was pretty much the last vestige of arcade games other than shooters and racers in my area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I'm trying to imagine what the equivalent of that awful anti-anti-social behavior message would be like in a sex positive society. Because you know someone would find a way to ruin everything. It's weird, because a lot of sex positivity is rooted in the idea you individually should decide what you want to do, when you want to do it, while seeking the enthusiastic consent of others. Having the prudish character who doesn't want to fool around be shown as bad would defeat the idea of sex positivity in the first place. You could have the character that doesn't stand up for their own desires, and goes along with what others want, but that then becomes victim blaming. I guess the only generally bad character could be a skeezy PUA-style person, but Jesus Christ, if this character is like that, they shouldn't be tolerated as part of the group. But then again, the anti-individuality message is really a poor messed up version of the generally good pro-social message (at least in American culture), so maybe these examples are relevant. BiggerBoat posted:I think ratings serve a purpose to a certain extent. I just hate how they're attached to specific ages like PG-13, R and X are. I don't see a whole lot wrong with a system that lets us know of something is heavy on profanity, sex, violence, gore or what have you - be it music or a movie or anything - just as a general guideline for concerned parents or anyone. I look at it like ingredients on food products. Yeah, I think content descriptors are probably way more useful, and I would always want them there. Despite the fact they are very similar to trigger warnings, and idiots bitch about that. Plus, they often end up being funny or weird! The age based ratings aren't the best and are completely subjective, though, and with different countries putting the same product in different age ranges, it gets weird. But for a quick overview, and as a limitation on say, preventing kids from buying it without adult permission, I'm fine with it. It's one of those things like drinking age where there are definitely people under 21 who could responsibly drink fine, and people over 21 who probably shouldn't be allowed, but the law needs a hard line. BiggerBoat posted:Off topic a bit, but the last time I went to Dave & Busters and even Chuck E. Cheese, it was a tad alarming and a bit off putting to see so many 8 year old kids shooting guns, even if it's only pretend. Almost all the game are shooters and racers, aside from the pop a shot and ski ball type games. This is the sad result of the improvement of console game systems, partially. Basically arcade machines used to have extremely better hardware than console systems, and so that itself was enough of a draw. As console systems got closer to arcade hardware, as well as finding niches that best suited their form factor, "plain" arcade machines fell by the wayside, because it was just easier to release a game that didn't require anything special on console. Arcades then mostly became "gimmick" type games like Dance Dance Revolution, shooters, and racers, but the hardware cost for those machines were still much higher, and had little benefit over the home versions that eventually came out. So you're left with the type of "gimmick" machines that are relatively cheap, racers and shooters compared to things like snowboarding or jetskiing. This is a similar thing that drove a lot of the gimmicks in movie theaters in the 40s and 50s, because TV started taking away audience members. Eventually, rather than stupid 3d glasses or piping in smells or having live actors interact with the audience, movie studios just started making films that had things that couldn't be shown on television. Interestingly, that probably led to the MPAA ratings, and then their effect led to the opposite effect we see today where films are toned down to make PG-13.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It's largely stuff like that. Bravely Default had a "brave bikini' which was absurdly scanty and they made it merely skimpy (and also bumped the character's ages up though only by a year or two so I guess it depends on if 14-15 is less creepy than 13.) It's the Bravo Bikini, and its creator said "so extreme was it that every girl to try it on instantly and irrevocably hated me without exception." Agnès wouldn't even try it on and respected him less for even having made it. The characters were aged up by 3 years in Bravely Default, so Edea was at least 18 when she put it on to date a 38 year old man who drugged her and took her to his secret lair. (The party promptly murders him and steals his power.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Yeah, I think content descriptors are probably way more useful, and I would always want them there. Despite the fact they are very similar to trigger warnings, and idiots bitch about that. Plus, they often end up being funny or weird! I wonder if there are any examples of marketing people putting MPAA rating descriptions front and center on movie posters. I know that if I made a movie that the MPAA described as containing "an abundance of outrageous gore," I'd want everyone to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
I work in UK TV compliance, we were recently asked to edit a series about childbirth so it could be shown at any time of day. We duly took out all the screaming, the protracted labour, the bodily fluids, vagina shots etc. What was left were scenes that rivaled a Hollywood movie in how quick, clean and painless they made childbirth appear which was completely counter-intuitive to the purpose of the show to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
GottaPayDaTrollToll posted:I wonder if there are any examples of marketing people putting MPAA rating descriptions front and center on movie posters. I know that if I made a movie that the MPAA described as containing "an abundance of outrageous gore," I'd want everyone to know. "Non-stop Ninja action" seems more like an endorsement than anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Who doesn't laugh at the thought of having to whitewash black characters in games? Dancing or stealing, suddenly, the cast has no minorities.Your Dunkle Sans posted:This is the logic that the MPAA uses to justify its existence (ie "It's better that we do it so the government doesn't have to"). It's got a pretty libertarian streak in that sense. Scalding Coffee has a new favorite as of 17:07 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
With film, I can kinda see it, because government regulation of film would a) be very iffy on First Amendment grounds and b) potentially neuter films like Elysium, Sicario, the Purge series, etc. that are critical of the current American status quo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
I don't ever expect to see stuff like Fracknation on a Hollywood film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:With film, I can kinda see it, because government regulation of film would a) be very iffy on First Amendment grounds and b) potentially neuter films like Elysium, Sicario, the Purge series, etc. that are critical of the current American status quo. Movies that depict the US military and take their funding/advice from them already whitewash/self-censor any negative depictions AFAIK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
beato posted:
Taking THE LORD's name in vain violates a commandment What immoral country do you live in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Movies that depict the US military and take their funding/advice from them already whitewash/self-censor any negative depictions AFAIK. Particularly any that are allowed to, eg, film on the deck of an aircraft carrier, or arrange fighter fly-bys. Can't really blame the military on that one, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this counts as censorship, but I'm sorry if someone thinks it's not. In the Pokemon games, you are able to name yourself and your Pokemon. Naturally, with the advent of online play starting in Gen 4, there was a push to block any names that contained curse words. The games would automatically ban you from choosing a "bad" name, making you pick something else. If you somehow worked around the censor, the online trading system would also ban your Pokemon from being traded. This meant that Pokemon put up for random trades wouldn't be picked by an 8 year old who might not know what a oval office was. This backfired in Gen 5, with a particular Pokemon's English name. That's right, since the word "fag" is actually in that Pokemon's name, it was initially unable to be traded without a nickname as the censor would pick it out and ban it. It's been adjusted now to allow the Pokemon to be traded, but it amazed me the first time I came across it that they hosed up their censorship/naming process so badly. E: And speaking of Nintendo censoring underage characters, didn't they make a significant edit to the newest Fire Emblem in regards to an underage character getting drugged? Or were they of age and it was just the drugging that was censored?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
IIRC Noseprear end still can't be, and in newer games it doesn't allow a swear or misspelling of in any language, and instead a trade ban you straight out aren't allowed to use the name. Good job teaching kids new and exciting foreign swears! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:IIRC Noseprear end still can't be, and in newer games it doesn't allow a swear or misspelling of in any language, and instead a trade ban you straight out aren't allowed to use the name. Good job teaching kids new and exciting foreign swears! Haha holy poo poo I didn't realise it extended to Nosepass! http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_censored_words_in_Generation_V That's a very educational list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
That reminds me, in Uniracers for the SNES you got the message "NOT COOL ENOUGH" when you tried to name your cycle a swear word, Satan, or, probably most notably, Sonic or Sega.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Movies that depict the US military and take their funding/advice from them already whitewash/self-censor any negative depictions AFAIK. But you totally have the ability to say "gently caress that" and just work with a lower budget. The movies I mentioned straight up wouldn't exist with government censorship, because Elyisum and the Purge movies are basically screaming "gently caress RICH PEOPLE, FULL COMMUNISM NOW" from the hilltops and Sicario is all about how badly we hosed up Mexico with the War on Drugs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Roro posted:That's right, since the word "fag" is actually in that Pokemon's name, it was initially unable to be traded without a nickname as the censor would pick it out and ban it. It's been adjusted now to allow the Pokemon to be traded, but it amazed me the first time I came across it that they hosed up their censorship/naming process so badly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Roro posted:E: And speaking of Nintendo censoring underage characters, didn't they make a significant edit to the newest Fire Emblem in regards to an underage character getting drugged? Or were they of age and it was just the drugging that was censored? I don't believe the character was underage, but they changed a scene that they said could be seen as gay conversion. Essentially a lesbian character gets drugged to see all men as women and ends up falling in love with the (male) protagonist, even after the drugs wear off. Or something like that, I haven't followed the game closely and it doesn't even have a release date over here so I haven't played it. Some details are probably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Whilst I don't remember the specifics, when the previous Australian government was trying to put in it's wowserish antiporn internet censorship thing "for the sake of the children", an opposition MP showed the absurdity of it all by showing that it would block her from searching for "strawberry tart" due to the percieved sexual overtones. I may be/probably am wrong on most of the details here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Veotax posted:I don't believe the character was underage, but they changed a scene that they said could be seen as gay conversion. Essentially a lesbian character gets drugged to see all men as women and ends up falling in love with the (male) protagonist, even after the drugs wear off. The character's ~quirky anime trait~ was being a chick who jokingly flirted with chicks, but wasn't actually romantically interested in them (  is she's the daughter of a womaniser and does it better than her father). The main character gives her a potion that makes her see him as a woman to help her open up or whatever, and the love comes from realising she doesn't need it. All that said, it is weird, and stupid, and the change was for the better even if only to prevent controversy and arguments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:But you totally have the ability to say "gently caress that" and just work with a lower budget. The movies I mentioned straight up wouldn't exist with government censorship, because Elyisum and the Purge movies are basically screaming "gently caress RICH PEOPLE, FULL COMMUNISM NOW" from the hilltops and Sicario is all about how badly we hosed up Mexico with the War on Drugs. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:The character's ~quirky anime trait~ was being a chick who jokingly flirted with chicks, but wasn't actually romantically interested in them (
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:32
|
|
