Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help
I know, I know I'm just saying that even if Takeuchi did something that could be questionable, it ultimately didn't/wouldn't matter. Same goes for Toei additions in anime thanks to legitimate presence of Haruka & MichiruKid Buu wrote:I think we're having miscommunication here. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm actually trying to back you up.
And to give Toei some credit, Kunzite/Zoisite was rather legitimate and respectful portrayal too so it's not like they only added the punchlines 
My gripe with that fight, wasn't the fact that she got badly beaten down as a female, nor should that be the source of it. My problem with it, is that it was done by a weak character like Spopovich that had no real threat to anyone else but her. I mean if it was Buu doing that, then it would be fair treatment because all characters would be beaten down no worse. If people want to be fair, then they have to get over this cringe seeing female characters getting beat up based on gender alone, but then being fine with it if its just the men. I mean, an innocent boothman got his head blown up in the same arc.gogeta97 wrote: Just to clarify, are you trying to say that it's fine for men and women to get beat down, but Videl's case is problematic because the one time we see her get beat down she retires and becomes a stereotypical housewife? Because if so a totally agree with you. I know Toriyama prefers writing and focusing on male characters but that pissed me off. That "MRA levels of analysis" comment was ridiculous for multiple reasons though....
Zephyr wrote:The fandom's collective fetishizing of "moments" is also ridiculous to me. No, not everyone needs a fucking "shine" moment. If that's all you want, then all you want is fanservice, rather than an actual coherent story. And of course those aren't mutually exclusive; you could have a coherent story with "shine" moments! But if a story is perfectly coherent (and I'm really not seeing any compelling arguments that this one is anything but, despite constantly recurring, really poorly reasoned, attempts to argue otherwise), and you're bemoaning the lack of "shine" moments as a reason for the story's poor quality, then you're letting your thirst for "shine" moments obfuscate your ability to detect basic storytelling when it's right in front of you.
Doesn't being under Babidi's control make him stronger than he usually would be though? I feel like Mr. Satan remembering him as being a pushover before he was Majin was the series way of solidifying that. I don't know how true the statement that women are weaker to men is and I have my theories that it isn't true for multiple reasons, and if someone thinks that way then that's fine, but I SINCERELY hope this fight wasn't Toriyama's way of "putting her in her place".SingleFringe&Sparks wrote:My gripe with that fight, wasn't the fact that she got badly beaten down as a female, nor should that be the source of it. My problem with it, is that it was done by a weak character like Spopovich that had no real threat to anyone else but her. I mean if it was Buu doing that, then it would be fair treatment because all characters would be beaten down no worse. If people want to be fair, then they have to get over this cringe seeing female characters getting beat up based on gender alone, but then being fine with it if its just the men. I mean, an innocent boothman got his head blown up in the same arc.gogeta97 wrote: Just to clarify, are you trying to say that it's fine for men and women to get beat down, but Videl's case is problematic because the one time we see her get beat down she retires and becomes a stereotypical housewife? Because if so a totally agree with you. I know Toriyama prefers writing and focusing on male characters but that pissed me off. That "MRA levels of analysis" comment was ridiculous for multiple reasons though....
fadeddreams5 wrote:At this point, that time machine is symbolic to how fans feel about Super. We hope it gets better, but ultimately find ourselves going back in time to a better series.
That's the unintentional, thirty-years-of-hindsight-omg-I-can't-believe-people-thought-this-way joke, for sure, but I'm almost certain within the context of the scenes, Toriyama isn't making any deeper commentary than what you see, and that very much is "gay people are bad." He's not condemning Kuririn and Bulma... unless you count Blue kicking their asses as such. Their intolerance, at least how I'm reading it, is completely not a joke, but that isn't to say we spend too much time on it. Kuririn basically goes "yuck, gays" and we move on. Not to let Toriyama totally off the hook, but like you and others in the thread have said, it's not coming from any sort of malice on the author's part.KameRule wrote:In the pirate cave, when Kuririn and Bulma comment on General Blue's sexuality, the joke isn't that "gay people are bad", the joke is that "Kuririn and Bulma are being assholes".
Keen Observation of Dragon Ball Z Movie 4's Climax wrote:Slug shits to see the genki
Yes, that was really the point of the fight itself. I think people might be looking to deeply into the fight. We could say the same message could have been shown with any character besides videl, but if we allude to preferring a man being in her spot, that would also be sexist as well. I think Toriyama just writes these shocking scenes for the sake of story rather than projection, because he doesn't plan anything out he says, he writes whatever just comes to mind that fits a situation. Though the one thing I like about anime, is that it doesn't treat women fighters as delicate either, because they shouldn't be. We're just not used to seeing it.gogeta97 wrote:Doesn't being under Babidi's control make him stronger than he usually would be though? I feel like Mr. Satan remembering him as being a pushover before he was Majin was the series way of solidifying that. I don't know how true the statement that women are weaker to men is and I have my theories that it isn't true for multiple reasons, and if someone thinks that way then that's fine, but I SINCERELY hope this fight wasn't Toriyama's way of "putting her in her place".
Zephyr wrote:The fandom's collective fetishizing of "moments" is also ridiculous to me. No, not everyone needs a fucking "shine" moment. If that's all you want, then all you want is fanservice, rather than an actual coherent story. And of course those aren't mutually exclusive; you could have a coherent story with "shine" moments! But if a story is perfectly coherent (and I'm really not seeing any compelling arguments that this one is anything but, despite constantly recurring, really poorly reasoned, attempts to argue otherwise), and you're bemoaning the lack of "shine" moments as a reason for the story's poor quality, then you're letting your thirst for "shine" moments obfuscate your ability to detect basic storytelling when it's right in front of you.
That is probably a much better word for it. Gratuitous. Bulma didn't HAVE to have her clothes in the wash and have Oolong fit her in a Playboy bunny outfit. All that ever amounts to is a small part of the story explaining the citizens of that random village were scared of people dressed like bunnies. (Which, really, is kind of strange. I don't even get why she put on the fake ears, if she didn't like wearing it in the first place...)Gaffer Tape wrote:Whew. So many posts have caught my eye!
I don't know if I'd even call that fanservice (and I love how this ties into our current discussion on YouTube... I'll be replying to that soon). I wouldn't be against someone classifying it as that, but I define sexual fanservice the same way I'd define any other fanservice: gratuitous. And since in Blooma's case, her use of sexuality is both defining for her character and instrumental in the progression of the story, I wouldn't call it fanservice. Now Alice Eve stripping down to her undies in Star Trek: Into Darkness for no other reason than... I don't even know (that movie is so stupid!)... I'd call that fanservice.MozillaVulpix wrote: - Bulma used as fanservice in the first arc isn't the best representation. I know why it's there, but it doesn't make me like it. At least she becomes more of a character later on, and by the Z-era it's pretty much all gone.
There's actually two parts to this issue that make it uncomfortable to me. One is that after getting beaten up horribly, Videl becomes very submissive, which actually applies to her character through the rest of the manga and ESPECIALLY Super. This is mostly unintentional, as you said.I agree with you and Mike over the idea that it's a poor implication that she's been all demure ever since then. And as Videl is my favorite female character precisely for those original attributes, I am not satisfied with the way she's been treated lately either. But the way you say it's a trigger makes it sound like there's anything in the series at all to confirm that those two situations are linked somehow. Unfortunate implication? Sure. But at no point does Videl give any indication that her getting beaten up by Spopovitch has any connection to her not fighting anymore. I mean, well, unless there's a newer episode of Super that does indicate that, in which case, ignore me, please. But let me contrast that with Yamucha. He gets impaled by #20 and then immediately says, "I'm not going to fight anymore." I hate that too, but there's a clear connection between the two events. This is more akin to saying Chichi gave up fighting because Goku knocked her out of the ring, and those two things happened at around the same time. I mean, it's possible, but in her case it's far more likely that she gave it up because she felt she had duties as a wife and mother, and it's not proper in her mind for a mother to do that. And I think that's stupid too and carries its own unfortunate baggage. But I'd be more inclined to believe that motivation from Toriyama, whose own wife retired from her career to be "the wife", than I would to believe that Videl had her fighting spirit beaten out of her.
I don't know why you would expect any better from a Youtube comment section.MozillaVulpix wrote: I never thought this was Toriyama's intention. But, like with the Chi-Chi thing, this was all triggered when I saw some comments on a clip of the fight on YouTube, saying stuff like "that b**** deserved it" and "she's such an idiot, no wonder she's getting beaten" and "that's what she gets for turning Gohan into a pussy".
fadeddreams5 wrote:At this point, that time machine is symbolic to how fans feel about Super. We hope it gets better, but ultimately find ourselves going back in time to a better series.
It was an extreme example but context matters, and the point is that you can't excuse being racist/sexist/homophobic by claiming you were 'just joking'.gogeta97 wrote:What the hell are you talking about? Literally everyone has made a racist joke before. Nothing is or should be off limits in comedy. If you can't tell the difference between a comedian/some friends making a joke and someone insulting a Holocaust survivor to their face then you need help.Polyphase Avatron wrote: You can't use the excuse that 'oh it was a joke, I didn't mean it' to get out of everything you say. Even if you're not being serious, you can still be spreading negative stereotypes and offending people who have serious issues with these topics. Would you go up to a Holocaust survivor and start joking about throwing them in the oven, then complain that they were taking it too seriously and it wasn't your intention to be hateful, they just need to lighten up?
It doesn't matter if someone is being 'ironically' racist, because they're still being racist.
Not really a good article at all as it fails to look at both sides of the argument and uses extreme examples to make its point. I'll agree that there are some people in the anti-PC crowd that get butthurt the second they hear an opposing argument, which in these cases is typically something genuinely hateful. But are you implying that everyone who takes issue with rampant political correctness is bigoted? I have a group of friends who do, but if I were to talk about black people the same way the article suggested they would absolutely call me out and not for being "politically incorrect" mind you but for being straight up RACIST. What do you say about the minority or female friends I have who take issue with the ultra-PC crowd? I'm bisexual, do you think someone like me shouldn't feel this way? Also what do you think about all of these instances of college speakers being run out by people who fear hearing an opposing argument regardless of whether it is hateful or not?Polyphase Avatron wrote: It was an extreme example but context matters, and the point is that you can't excuse being racist/sexist/homophobic by claiming you were 'just joking'.
Here is a good article on the issue:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbre ... t-honesty/
Also does anyone else see the massive hypocrisy of the 'Anti-PC' crowd? They keep claiming that the other side is out to censor them (ignoring or failing to realize that criticism and censorship are two separate things), and their attitude can be summed up as:
Spoiler:
fadeddreams5 wrote:At this point, that time machine is symbolic to how fans feel about Super. We hope it gets better, but ultimately find ourselves going back in time to a better series.
I think this is what both sides of any heated issue need to take more time to appreciate. Even when the most critical of minds with the most information possible discuss these sorts of matters at length in a clear and level headed mindset, there are still going to be fundamental, irreconcilable disagreements. And when you reach a fundamental, irreconcilable disagreement, there's nothing you can really do to convince the other side that they're championing the wrong value, that they care about the less important thing. Things are only important to evaluators, and there's no value-less evaluator who can mediate such conflicts to illuminate the "better" thing to value. Thinking otherwise ultimately appears to me to be symptomatic of a deficiency in humility and a proportional excess of pride and self-righteousness.gogeta97 wrote:In the end, there really is no "right side" in this argument and smugly smearing your opponents with extreme examples just makes you, and your side, look worse REGARDLESS of which side it is. I have listened to arguments that I disagree with and REALLY disagree with and will continue to do so because it makes it easier for me to come to a better conclusion and make better, less biased arguments.
It's more complicated than that. Often times, some side will change terms and use vague language in order to stifle clear thinking. I don't think most of those people shouting about tolerance are championing it. I do agree that lumping all people together in a particular group as all the same is lazy thinking. We need to separate out the individuals from the ideas. People can hold bad ideas for all sorts of reasons, some for naïve but well intentioned reasons, others for bad reasons. However, when it goes beyond just rhetoric I disagree with (or might even agree with in some instances) and individuals begin instigating violence or throwing insults or threats at people, then I have no patience for that, it's flat out wrong.For starters, language evolves, and you can never know without having an actual conversation to clarify, what possible connotations one may mean. And regardless of the definition, trying to put someone down or shut them out simply because of their conclusion is flat out intolerant. It's bigotry, through and through, and becomes utterly ironic when I see people who champion tolerance do it. I see it at school all the time.
I think the alternative you are positing between relativism and dogmatism is a false one.On the contrary, this relativism provides a compelling reason for why these conversations need to happen in the first place. Viewpoints still need to be challenged, lest we fall into the abyss of dogmatism.
It seems you may have missed my entire point...VegettoEX wrote:My reading of the initial statement was "but men get beat down, too!" which... I dunno, it's hard to read, which is why I tried to go on to further clarify and explain. Like, "it's OK for the girls to get beat down (despite all this other stuff that we're not yet acknowledging and putting into context) 'cuz the men do too!" But that's not really the point here, 'cuz ______________ (insert all this other context).
Thus my not total condemnation of it all. Tricky issue to discuss!
I'm not saying that it's supposed to be some kind of social commentary, but merely that Toriyama isn't condemning Blue for being homosexual. I didn't mean that Toriyama is trying to condemn Bulma and Kuririn for their intolerance (I meant "assholes" from the perspective of someone today who does have hindsight) but rather that he's making examples of the way in which they react to Blue's sexual preferences, only for them to then, as you mentioned, get their arses kicked shortly afterwards. Like you said though, he probably wasn't thinking about it very much when writing about it. I just didn't see it as much as a product of its time as I did as just a funny scene. Maybe that's because I'm young and sheltered and on the wrong side of history and all that crap, but who knows. Like you said, I just don't think that Toriyama is a bigot, is all. And I think that all of the other points I made in that post still stand true.B wrote:That's the unintentional, thirty-years-of-hindsight-omg-I-can't-believe-people-thought-this-way joke, for sure, but I'm almost certain within the context of the scenes, Toriyama isn't making any deeper commentary than what you see, and that very much is "gay people are bad." He's not condemning Kuririn and Bulma... unless you count Blue kicking their asses as such. Their intolerance, at least how I'm reading it, is completely not a joke, but that isn't to say we spend too much time on it. Kuririn basically goes "yuck, gays" and we move on. Not to let Toriyama totally off the hook, but like you and others in the thread have said, it's not coming from any sort of malice on the author's part.KameRule wrote:In the pirate cave, when Kuririn and Bulma comment on General Blue's sexuality, the joke isn't that "gay people are bad", the joke is that "Kuririn and Bulma are being assholes".
I think regardless of if they do that or not, then rational, two sided discussion will (hopefully) clarify things. Whatever it is they change it to, or even if they don't, the vagueness becomes weakened relative to how much things are clarified via discussion.ABED wrote:It's more complicated than that. Often times, some side will change terms and use vague language in order to stifle clear thinking.
The ones I had in mind while writing that include two groups:ABED wrote:I don't think most of those people shouting about tolerance are championing it.
Now, I agree with you here (at least on the violence part). But there's an additional wrinkle: some people may believe that violence is not flat out wrong. They may weigh and balance values and ends in different ways than you or I do. Are they wrong for doing so? If so, why? How are you going to rationally demonstrate to them that they have the incorrect value system? What would that even look like? Again, I think the best that we could hope for is to converse with them until we can empirically prove to them that violence is in fact contrary to their more fundamental goals. We can hope for that. It won't necessarily be true that violence is contrary to these goals, and if it's not, then we're at an impasse.ABED wrote:However, when it goes beyond just rhetoric I disagree with (or might even agree with in some instances) and individuals begin instigating violence or throwing insults or threats at people, then I have no patience for that, it's flat out wrong.
Not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate? I'm moreso vouching for relativism than anything else.ABED wrote:I think the alternative you are positing between relativism and dogmatism is a false one.
Likewise not entirely sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that certain ideas, opinions, and conclusions are inherently just wrong?ABED wrote:Bottom line, ideas can be wrong and can be criticized as they are chosen
Assuming that person is willing to have a have a rational discussion, even then, they will still often not clarify things or misinterpret what someone says. For instance, I've had discussions about income inequality and no matter how many times I ask for something more than "fair share" I often get either no answer, outright hostility, or continually vague responses. I've had a number of discussions with these types and no matter how many times I clarify my comments or use analogies and examples, they will interpet things the same way they always have.I think regardless of if they do that or not, then rational, two sided discussion will (hopefully) clarify things. Whatever it is they change it to, or even if they don't, the vagueness becomes weakened relative to how much things are clarified via discussion.
That doesn't make them right. I'm not dismissing your point outright, but I will concede that my thoughts on the issue aren't fully formed and I'm not the best at articulating them, at least not on a subject such as this. The best I can come up with is I'm against the INITIATION of force.But there's an additional wrinkle: some people may believe that violence is not flat out wrong. They may weigh and balance values and ends in different ways than you or I do.
An opposing argument that is historically/socially honest? Or there to just deny things their party doesn't see or want to recognize exists in society outside themselves? You can't be one of those people that lets say, claims they admit a bigoted stigma about a social group in society exists, then deny those that are exemplified. Thats what the anti-PC crowds do. Most opposing arguments are not actually fitting a discussion, but assertions of denial of the subject, in order to keep their conservative status quo. Anti-PC (and PC people in this context) people aren't as individualist as they claim they are when they argue under these circular double standards. Of course you cant generalize to make a point, nor can you generalize to debunk that same point. Its like, some women find self-empowerment in their sexuality and some want to be modest with it. We cant define a group one way that suits our preferences of them be it positive or negative. We have to address what is actually the recoil of a generalized belief.gogeta97 wrote: I'm bisexual, do you think someone like me shouldn't feel this way? Also what do you think about all of these instances of college speakers being run out by people who fear hearing an opposing argument regardless of whether it is hateful or not?
Zephyr wrote:The fandom's collective fetishizing of "moments" is also ridiculous to me. No, not everyone needs a fucking "shine" moment. If that's all you want, then all you want is fanservice, rather than an actual coherent story. And of course those aren't mutually exclusive; you could have a coherent story with "shine" moments! But if a story is perfectly coherent (and I'm really not seeing any compelling arguments that this one is anything but, despite constantly recurring, really poorly reasoned, attempts to argue otherwise), and you're bemoaning the lack of "shine" moments as a reason for the story's poor quality, then you're letting your thirst for "shine" moments obfuscate your ability to detect basic storytelling when it's right in front of you.
And so many on both sides don't understand the meaning of "free speech". It has nothing to do with people disagreeing, it applies to government action.Most Anti-PC people are more so always looking to justifying them with "free speech" rather than coherent speech.
The term itself is poorly defined. Originally safe spaces were not literal. They meant a responsibility of respectful criticism or disagreement when introduced to debating clubs or the overall impersonal standard for the learning environment. Not rejection of it entirely. However denying accountability to give respect to others isn't a right for those that want to instigate hate in the means of a "prank" doesn't sound very inclusive.ABED wrote:When these college kids talk about "safe spaces" I don't grant them benefit of the doubt.
Zephyr wrote:The fandom's collective fetishizing of "moments" is also ridiculous to me. No, not everyone needs a fucking "shine" moment. If that's all you want, then all you want is fanservice, rather than an actual coherent story. And of course those aren't mutually exclusive; you could have a coherent story with "shine" moments! But if a story is perfectly coherent (and I'm really not seeing any compelling arguments that this one is anything but, despite constantly recurring, really poorly reasoned, attempts to argue otherwise), and you're bemoaning the lack of "shine" moments as a reason for the story's poor quality, then you're letting your thirst for "shine" moments obfuscate your ability to detect basic storytelling when it's right in front of you.
It's not poorly defined, it's clear what they want. They want colleges to be safe from ideas they disagree with. It's why you get college professors intimidating people for taking pictures of a protest.SingleFringe&Sparks wrote:The term itself is poorly defined. Originally safe spaces were not literal. They meant a responsibility of respectful criticism or disagreement in generalABED wrote:When these college kids talk about "safe spaces" I don't grant them benefit of the doubt.
society. Not rejection of it entirely. However denying accountability to give respect to others isn't a right for those that want to instigate hate in the means of a "prank" doesn't sound very inclusive for equal opportunity standards.
This is a good thread. Please don't deviate from the topic at hand, because I actually want to see where the discussion goes.ABED wrote:I don't foresee this thread ending well
