Forum - View topicINTEREST: Crunchyroll Adds Content Warning to Goblin Slayer 1st Ep
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agent355
 Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
|||||||
Completely agreed. My 10-year-old niece likes Banananya, and I wouldn't want her anywhere near Goblin Slayer. It bothers me that ratings can be so vague and all-encompassing. And while ratings have a history of discriminating against LGBT content, I think that a well managed system can avoid that bias while still warning parents and people with PTSD against outright explicit violence and sexual violence. And, yes, depictions of sexual violence can be particularly triggering to actual survivors of sexual violence. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
encrypted12345
Posts: 718 |
|
|||||||
While I do think that a rating system needs to get a little more specific than "everything is TV-14", ultimately, if the rating system isn't sufficient for a parent/guardian's needs, then it's their responsibility to compensate by putting in extra work. Furthermore, ratings have shifting standards. PG arguably would have been an appropriate rating for Goblin Slayer if it were released at the time the animated movie Wizards was made. They simply cannot be used as a replacement for actual research of the material. I hate to poke the controversy bubble, but as someone who was almost killed by a illegal drug using middle schooler while at an elementary school age, I am relatively unfazed by fictional violence or fictional drug use. Personal ideology seems to be a bigger factor if one is triggered by fictional violence (sexual or otherwise) than possibly traumatic events. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
#859752
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||||
|
This shouldn't even be a discussion. The warning is there to give those viewers who are browsing for a show and doesn't have any preferences going forth. Not everyone has the time to check the shows ratings, nor even bother doing it.
To those saying why other shows doesn't have the same warning messages... its because not all standards are implemented from the get go. Content warnings is not mandatory specially for an anime streaming service. Only ratings. Issue with it being a spoiler even at the most minor case? something vague like that means totally nothing and helps alot to the individuals who doesn't watch such shows. At least they get a heads up what they are getting into. Not eveyone watch their shit on their basement, some do it publicly and sex violence showing out of nowehere is certainly embarrasing. Get your selfish attitude together and look at it on a bigger picture. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Shiflan
 Posts: 418 |
|
|||||||
How is it possible that someone has time to watch a show, but doesn't have time to research what show they might want to watch? That is absurd. If someone has so much time on their hands that they are watching shows at random just to see if they might like them then surely those people have time to do a little searching to see what shows suit their preferances. "nor even bother doing it", aka laziness, is not an excuse.
Watching questionable shows in public is embarrassing? Sure is. All the more reason not to watch shows in public, period. It's not as if you can properly concentrate on them with distractions around you anyway, and even if the show is not objectionable it's still rude to those around you. You talk of selfishness, yet you seem to have no qualms about bothering random strangers in public with your phone toy? {Edit}: Watch the insults. I edited your post. ~ Psycho 101 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
TexZero
Posts: 583 |
|
|||||||
...and demanding that a show be modified to fit your idea of what's acceptable for viewing isn't equally as selfish ? Look i get that the show isn't for everyone, but i'm firmly in the camp that if you don't like something or don't want someone you know watching something above their maturity level it's on you to self moderate. I could care less what the company has to do at this point to save face, but if even after these warnings there's more bashing on the show by people who think it's content is detestable but still watch it week to week then i have 0 sympathies. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Vadara
Posts: 61 |
|
|||||||
Please post evidence that anyone wants to have the show's content altered. Actual evidence. Not merely someone criticizing the show. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
NGK
Posts: 244 |
|
|||||||
|
So Goblin Slayer is next in line with trigger warnings. Last season it was Happy Sugar Life.
wow ... and people say slippery slope is fallacy. But that’s only true in the strict confines of debate clubs 
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
TexZero
Posts: 583 |
|
|||||||
Go read the article it has all the evidence you need. The show did not have a content warning and now suddenly does because people feign outrage as opposed to self moderating and turning off the "objectionable" content. Ironically it's coming from a very vocal minority whose primary concern seems to be about the ethics and morality of the show specifically a Rape sequence, but the scene's with brutal violence were perfectly fine. Lesson to be learned from this public outrage over the onscreen murder and torture of males and females is no big deal. Show someone being sexually assualted and people lose their minds and cry about morality and how this is pandering to the teenage market to glorify rape. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Violynne
Posts: 128 |
|
|||||||
I can't agree to this. Most viewers, without knowing about the content of the show, has a pretty good idea that "graphic" and "disturbing" are terms used to represent situations not commonly seen. A good example of this is a typical news broadcast which shows an unarmed person being shot by a police officer. These are always preceded by "Warning: contents may be graphic", even if no blood is shown. The issue isn't limited to the visual, but the impact of the scene. People can get very emotional over specific content, which is why they're "broad". But they most assuredly are helpful. Ask any parent. Most would ban their child from the show even if they haven't seen it themselves (such as the time my mom refused me a viewing of Alien when I was a kid. Now they sell toys of it!). I also want to point out there's a misconception about the rating system: they are not governed by law. They're entirely voluntary by the industries which serve the content. These ratings are the result of creators "pushing the bounds". The rating system is a compromise which states "We're not blocking what you're doing, but we believe people should be warned this may be offensive". It's a fair compromise, so I don't understand why anyone would be against them. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
lossthief
ANN Reviewer
 Posts: 1397 |
|
|||||||
That's...not evidence of people wanting to "change the content" of Goblin Slayer. That's evidence that people wanted a properly posted content warning before the episode so they could, to use your words, "self moderate." Content warnings have been around longer than anyone in this thread has been alive. It's not a slippery slope or whatever to censorship. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Shiflan
Posts: 418 |
|
|||||||
I disagree. While it might not necessarily lead to censorship in the pedantic definition of the term, it certainly can, and does, lead to de facto censorship. I can cite two real-world examples, at least here in the US: 1) With music. I remember, when I was much younger, music that contained "offensive lyrics" such as profanity started being labeled with those well-known "Parental Warning / Explicit Lyrics" markings. The idea seemed benign enough: warn potential buyers (or their parents) that the lyrics contained profanity. The problem was that many large retailers, famously Wal-Mart, would not carry music which bore that sticker under the guise of being "family friendly". As a result many artists started to self-censor because in those days Wal-mart was by far the largest retailer of albums and thus represented a huge percentage of a given album's sales. (I think another poster mentioned this earlier in the thread but I could not find it, so my apologies for not giving credit where it was due) I have been told that Wal-Mart's "sales censorship" policy also extended to books, but I am not certain if that was in fact true or not. 2) With movies. The MPAA implemented a movie rating system that we all know: G, PG, PG-13, R, and X (later NC-17). The overwhelming majority of theaters would not show NC-17 films at all. And while they would usually show R-rated films, that rating was found to greatly decrease the number of tickets sold. As a result, truly "adult" (i.e. X/NC-17) rated films more or less disappeared entirely, and many other films were edited to ensure an PG-13 rating instead of R. 3) With comic books. The well-known "comics code seal of approval" was meant to protect children from "bad content" in comic books, and it did do some of those things, like prohibiting the use of profanity. However it ended up being a quite pervasive form of censorship that anyone would look at today and would find quite bigoted. In addition to prohibiting excessive violence and profanity it also banned: -the mere reference to LGBT characters or issues -nudity of any form (even outside of a sexual context) -any reference to corruption or crime on the part of a public official -the depiction of communism or feminism in a positive light ...and so on. And there is more evidence earlier in this topic too:
That sounds like censorship to me.
I'm omitting the entire quote for brevity, but this is a very good point as well. I don't have a problem with content warnings as I have stated repeatedly, but I think that it is nonsense to suggest that it cannot go down the slippery slope to censorship or worse. Content warnings are a good idea in my opinion but care must be exercised not to let things get out of hand. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Mad_Scientist
 SubscriberModerator  Posts: 3011 |
|
|||||||
|
The amount of bad faith arguing in this thread is mind boggling and frustrating. Content warnings have existed on crunchyroll for a long, long time now. It didn't stop them from streaming shows with graphic content like Goblin Slayer or Berserk. The lack of a content rating for Goblin Slayer was an clearly oversight on their part, one they corrected once it was brought to their attention.
So no, all this complaining about "slippery slopes" and bringing up hypothetical situations and completely different industries is fooling no one. The old comics code authority is as relevant to this discussion as the fact that comic book industry is still super heavily focused on physical sales through small comic book shops. Is crunchyroll going to abandon their digital model, ignore streaming, and make their entire business model focused on selling physical copies of anime from comic shops? I have absolutely zero evidence for this, and it would make zero sense, but hey, that's how the comic industry works, so it must apply to crunchryroll, right?! The handful of DVDs crunchyroll has sold is clearly a slippery slope! That's what you sound like when you bring up stuff like the comics code authority. At least the people who just admit they hate content ratings because they want to upset liberals or something are being honest. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Debus
Posts: 12 |
|
|||||||
|
Nothing wrong with having a content warning. I like the series so far, but it's obviously not a show for kids.
This is a non-issue. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Lord Oink
Posts: 876 |
|
|||||||
|
I agree with Mad_Scientist, but not for the reasons they say. Movies, comics, and etc have those issues because the companies involved are the ones in charge of making them.
Deadpool turning into a PG-13 version is so they can merge it into the MCU and get a wider audience. Comics being the way they are is because Marvel/DC themselves are desperate to stay alive. Anime is not made by Crunchyroll. All they can do is censor the localized version, and if they end up doing that, well... there's plenty of other places you can watch the show that won't, as we all know. I'd be more worried about the people who demand Crunchyroll change their translations to be less "problematic", and the dub companies who already do that. Just keep yourself an informed anime consumer and know what localization companies are doing, and you'll be fine. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Shiflan
Posts: 418 |
|
|||||||
It is equally frustrating that you see it as "bad faith" rather than someone having a different perspective than you do. The only inaccurate statement that I have seen in this thread, other than groundless accusations of bad faith, was the assertion that someone who has time to watch anime does not have the time to research it.
Agreed completely, and as most of us have said we don't have any problem with content warnings. We are just concerned that it doesn't go beyond that. Content warnings are a great idea. Going beyond that is not.
The situations are not hypothetical, they are very real. They actually happened. And even now there are series that Crunchyroll (et al) have not/will not license for reasons of objectionable content. Notice how no streaming service carries hentai? And I fail to see how examples like music lyric warnings, comics code, and MPAA ratings are in any way tied to physical retail as opposed to streaming. It is the idea that is important: something that started with good intentions became co-opted into a tool of bigotry, or manipulated to prioritize profit over artistic expression.
What do physical shops have to do with anything? The principles apply just as much to streaming as they do physical media. Censorship does not depend on physical retail. We can see this with radio broadcast censoring song lyrics, digital video game releases removing objectionable parts of games, and so on. Thinking those previously listed examples are tied to physical retail is missing the point entirely. Especially the one in which a poster clearly stated that Crunchyroll shouldn't even carry Goblin Slayer in the first place. Here's the thing: I don't watch Goblin Slayer. I don't watch "adult"/Hentai anime. I don't care for most of the ultra-violent/gory stuff from the 80's OVA era. I have a huge music collection but I can only think of two songs out of thousands of albums which contain even a single example of profanity. I don't read comic books. Neither myself or anyone in my family is LGBT. So really, even the hint of censorship probably wouldn't apply to me. But I feel that it is very important to stick up for and challenge anything that might restrict that sort of thing for others. If I don't stick up for the rights of others when they need it, who is going to stick up for my rights when I need it? Freedom is something that requires constant vigilance, even if it for things that we ourselves are not interested in. It is a matter of principle, not practicality. Freedom is not limited to just those things we care about, but rather applies to everything. Content warnings are a great idea in my book. As a previous poster said, they are the very tools people use to self-moderate. That cannot be faulted. But I do think it is very wise to be vigilant and not let things go beyond that, as we've seen happen so many times in the past. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group