LOL an ass about it? Sorry I guess. You quoting me using the word, with your reply being “anybody using this word gives it whatever meaning that’s convenient to them and changes it on a whim”, inclined pretty heavily on the possibility that you were referring to me. I did say I wasn’t sure, but definitely don’t see the “obvious” partShaddy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 7:29 amOkay, well I feel like it should have been pretty obvious that I did not mean that, but if you're going to be an ass about it, then alright I guess.dva_raza wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:06 am That was bold. Not sure if you’re referring specifically to me, but I certainly didn’t change or intended to change the word's meaning "on a whim" according to what's "convenient". Especially considering I'm almost obsessed with definitions of words and consistency lol
And just so it’s clear, I said exactly what I meant there.
Don’t understand how could the basic meaning of a concept be ‘the least useful one’ when having a discussion about it. I guess maybe it’s not useful to someone trying to complicate things. THEN simplicity gets in your way right?
You might find it objectionable in the way that it's just annoying but that term obviously (in the context of censoring something) refers mostly to something that's believed to be potentially offensive or harmful.I think it's objectionable when Goku and Freeza spend ten minutes of an episode staring at each other, does that make it "censorship" when fanedits cut that content out? If not, then why?
The 5 minute staring thing can be considered annoying or unnecessary, and therefore edited. That’s not censorship, that’s editing. Unless of course you gonna argue that you’re somehow offended or harmed by Goku and Frieza staring at each other
There's room for subjectivity with any adjective but there ARE basic meanings for terms after all. You can’t just point at anything that doesn't fit the description of what the term means. I mean you can, but that wouldn't be the general perception, so it wouldn't matterIs what qualifies as "obscene" not completely subjective?
There is. The separating line is the motive for the change.Because the fact is, there is no hard line separating a """political""" change from a normal artistic one.
If you just create things differently because that’s what you want out of your genuine belief for how it should be, without any external pressure, or fear to upset anybody, that’s not censorship, nobody here argued it was, and I never opposed that (I literally expressed that that’s what I would’ve liked), basically for them to be more tasteful, instead of getting external impositionsOkay, so explain how this rhetoric can't be used to justify the exact thing you think you're complaining about.
That’s a nonsensical scenario and I don’t get the "the way it's supposed to be" part. If Toei DIDN’T want to do it, then that’s not the way “it’s supposed to be”. What’s supposed to be is what the creator wants.If the fan outcry over Toei not animating sexual assault of their own free will becomes so great that they admit defeat and go back to making rapey Roshi scenes, is that suddenly NOT censorship because it's back to being "the way it's supposed to be"? If so, what exactly makes the distinction in your eyes?
Regarding the distinction, technically, the distinction is that the definition of censorship, again, includes the word “supression” (which is a subtraction, not an addition).
But morally, no distinction (imo). The idea of a creator having to change (add in this case) something the fans demanded in order to avoid upsetting them, sounds awful to me