Dragon Ball Super Gets Cancelled Overseas Over Sexual Harassment Claims

[Demon Prince Piccolo]

About the topic, I will never understand people getting so riled up about shit that happens in fiction. Like, it's not real.

As long as the writer isn't trying to send some kind of message to the audience that whatever immoral thing that happens in the story is completely okay, then let it be. People should be allowed to write whatever they want, and the audience should be allowed to choose whether or not they like it and if they want to continue to support it.

I wouldn't say I'm exactly "riled up," as you put it, but fiction often reflects society's attitude at large about certain issues. Roshi's perversions are played for laughs in Dragon Ball. While ultimately, parents and authority figures should teach children to know this type of behavior is not OK, watching Dragon Ball, it's easy to think "Man, Roshi is a perv, but it's nothing a good slap won't fix within the moment. Once Bulma, Launch, Chi-Chi, or Android 18 slaps him, everyone else laughs and it's all good! Plus, his good actions make up for it, like when he trains Goku and Krillin, teaches Tien the errors of his ways, or sacrifices himself against King Piccolo." Because the characters tolerate Roshi and keep him around, sure, it doesn't send the message that sexual assault=good, but it sure as hell doesn't say sexual assault=bad, either.

I can't exactly fault people for not wanting a kids show depicting characters like this moving forward, personally. Maybe it doesn't register as a problem to you, but I don't think that dismisses anyone's arguments against it. The stance that "it's all fiction anyway" is a bit of a cop-out.

[kemuri07]

There is no casual connection between Master Roshi and sexual harrassment in Japan. Looked in a box, DB is harmless.


But that's not how culture works. Media both informs and takes in culture. On its own Dragon Ball doesn't do anything, but as a wider narrative of cultural representation of gender and sex, DB, along with vast amounts of other anime, tv shows, and movies can absolutely normalize certain toxic attitudes. The problem I often see in discussions about this is that people are making the wrong arguments. It's not about determining whether or not DB is bad, it's to have a discussion on what it all means. Too often, however, is that people take an all or nothing approach to everything: i.e. the culture wars.

That's not how discussions and arguments work, but I blame Ben Shapiro and his ilk for popularizing treating debates as a literal battleground. Which is a shame, because more often than not, people tend to agree with each other when people consider context.

[Demon Prince Piccolo]

There is no casual connection between Master Roshi and sexual harrassment in Japan. Looked in a box, DB is harmless.


But that's not how culture works. Media both informs and takes in culture. On its own Dragon Ball doesn't do anything, but as a wider narrative of cultural representation of gender and sex, DB, along with vast amounts of other anime, tv shows, and movies can absolutely normalize certain toxic attitudes. The problem I often see in discussions about this is that people are making the wrong arguments. It's not about determining whether or not DB is bad, it's to have a discussion on what it all means. Too often, however, is that people take an all or nothing approach to everything: i.e. the culture wars.

That's not how discussions and arguments work, but I blame Ben Shapiro and his ilk for popularizing treating debates as a literal battleground. Which is a shame, because more often than not, people tend to agree with each other when people consider context.

It seems that people don't like that the conversations are taking place at all, so without listening to the actual points being made, they just claim that people are too sensitive over a cartoon as though that invalidates all arguments. Ironically said attitude is in effect "cancelling" out any room for debate.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Seems you have your own peculiar definition of communism and ignore all of the other ways it's been conceived of and implemented throughout history. I see no evidence that a completely stateless, anarchist society would ever work on a large scale either.

No, I have the definition. It's your problem if you listen to what fascist propagandists say the definition is over the people who are trying to have an actual discussion. You might as well condemn democracy because North Korea calls themselves "democratic".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/communism

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
4. communalism.

Even if this comparison were fair or accurate -- your bad argument still hinges on the idea that it could somehow be so cold that you burn to a crisp -- because your idea of "too far left" is just reactionary conservatism for groups less popular with conservatives, and that's complete bullshit.

Calling the likes of the USSR 'reactionary conservatives' makes zero sense. It seems like you're trying to redefine everything to fit your preconceived notions - everything left must be good, and everything right must be bad, so every bad government had to have been right-wing, and not left-wing. It's like how some conservatives claim that the Nazis couldn't have been conservative because they called themselves 'socialist'.

There seems to be an issue people have where failed socialist societies that have become government dictated are now referred to as socialist/communist.

To put things simply, capitalism is characterised by private ownership of the means of production, to put EXTREMELY SIMPLY.
Socialism is characterised by common ownership of the means of production.

Or state ownership. That's another part of the definition you are ignoring.

China has private property, workers are treated like shit, just like in the USSR, there is nothing remotely socialist about these countries, unfortunately back then I don’t think the technology was developed enough to reach socialism, like it is today.

I really don't buy that, considering that we still live on a planet with limited resources, so people are going to end up hoarding them one way or another. The best we can do is make sure that everyone has enough to live comfortably.

There is a distinct difference in “far left” and far right, in that the far right seeks to regress humanity and the left in general wants progression. You cannot deny this from all the writings of prominent people on the left, up to this very day the left is built upon a need for humanity to progress and overall make life happier for everyone.

As to evidence, you won’t find any evidence because you need a technological advanced society to form socialism, otherwise you end up with problems like people using labour vouchers as actual currency which under a modern socialist society it wouldn’t be possible since it’d be done through virtual exchange.

Saying that countries who tried “socialism” is wrong in the way that’s it’s far more nuanced than that, the USSR and China have failed completely and have become capitalist, there was so little freedom in the USSR that men had to get razors through the black market. It’s not that socialism doesn’t work, it’s that society isn’t in a stage that it can progress to that yet (like imagine going from feudalism to the capitalism we have right now, before the loom and steam engine was created), or that capitalist countries destabilise them because socialism is a progression, ridding the society of the profit motive and more democracy (like worker co ops for start).

Hopefully this takes some strain off of Shaddy, and hopefully you understand this now.

Like I said before, if we had Star Trek replicator technology and enough living space, food, and water for everybody without any possibility of running out, then that kind of government might work. But we're a long way from that.

You admitted in your post that every attempt to institute a communist government ended up turning out badly, so excuse me for being skeptical of trying again today.

Bernie Sanders used to be firmly against immigration, which is probably why he’s had a decent following among the anti-SJW crowd. Of course, now that I think about it, Europe seems pretty behind America when it comes to immigration. Immigrants generally seem more well integrated in the United States compared to most European countries. Honestly, my general observation of European countries on average is that they are indeed to the left of America when it comes to economic issues (namely healthcare), but socially speaking, they’re not that great.

I'm pro-immmigration. The US is a country of immigrants after all. My ancestors were immigrants. Immigrants make America strong.

[JulieYBM]

There is no casual connection between Master Roshi and sexual harrassment in Japan. Looked in a box, DB is harmless.


But that's not how culture works. Media both informs and takes in culture. On its own Dragon Ball doesn't do anything, but as a wider narrative of cultural representation of gender and sex, DB, along with vast amounts of other anime, tv shows, and movies can absolutely normalize certain toxic attitudes. The problem I often see in discussions about this is that people are making the wrong arguments. It's not about determining whether or not DB is bad, it's to have a discussion on what it all means. Too often, however, is that people take an all or nothing approach to everything: i.e. the culture wars.

That's not how discussions and arguments work, but I blame Ben Shapiro and his ilk for popularizing treating debates as a literal battleground. Which is a shame, because more often than not, people tend to agree with each other when people consider context.

It seems that people don't like that the conversations are taking place at all, so without listening to the actual points being made, they just claim that people are too sensitive over a cartoon as though that invalidates all arguments. Ironically said attitude is in effect "cancelling" out any room for debate.

'People' in this context being misogynists. Misogynistic people (not just men!) absolutely abhor when women and their allies speak up about the manner in which common media portrays women. They either mistakenly take criticism of media as being a personal attack on them and their behavior and beliefs or will hide behind a veneer of calling women liars. I mean, haven't we pretty much seen that sort of bullshit in this thread for the past twenty pages?

I mean, I complain about it all the time but there's a lack of social conscious in these male-dominated spaces that drives me up the wall because I feel like I can't relate to just not caring about other people and how they are harmed by our systems (specifically media as a system since that is of course the subject of the community).

Bah, this whole post of mine feels like masturbation (and not the fun kind)! Basically, I'm not mad...I'm just disappointed and it makes me frustrated.

[kemuri07]

Calling the likes of the USSR 'reactionary conservatives' makes zero sense. It seems like you're trying to redefine everything to fit your preconceived notions - everything left must be good, and everything right must be bad, so every bad government had to have been right-wing, and not left-wing. It's like how some conservatives claim that the Nazis couldn't have been conservative because they called themselves 'socialist'.

I mean...I think you're kinda missing the point here. The poster wasn't calling the USSR conservatives, but that "socialism" becomes the go-to phrase for reactionaries who wish to paint enemies as "Un-American." Basically, anything not capitalism must be communism. And that's bad. Socialism/Communism has become pretty much meaningless as a lot of Americans don't even know what the word means, even though many benefit from some aspect of socialism in their lives. In regards to what happen with Russia and China...they failed the basic tenants of socialism/communism. That's why during the 50s and 60s many American communists fell out of favor with the party, because they saw what Stalin was doing and it wasn't what they signed up for.

When people claim they are socialist, 9 times out of 10 they're really democratic socialist, and there is a difference. People like Elizabeth Warren or AOC do not want to destroy capitalism. What they do, however, want is to use the levers of Capitalism to in favor of more socialist like demands: A stronger labor party, a welfare state that can provide for its people, and less influence from billionaires and business owners and to tax the rich. These are things most people want, but due to lack of education and deliberate fucking around by certain political actors, it's hard for Americans to come together on these issues

Truth is, capitalism as it is right now is on its way to being an authoritative police state, and I'm sure some would argue we're already there anyways. When a small group of people have access to a majority of the wealth, and the rest of us have to fight for scraps, that level of inequality eventually leads to the type of shit we're seeing across Latin America. Capitalism, at least the version we were sold on, is just as much a failure as the "communism" of China and Russia.

[Shaddy]

It's like how some conservatives claim that the Nazis couldn't have been conservative because they called themselves 'socialist'.

This is literally the thing that you are doing, right now.

Or state ownership. That's another part of the definition you are ignoring.

Because that's wrong. A state will always be a power separate from the public, meaning state ownership is one more form of private ownership. It would only be a part of the definition if you were willing to acknowledge that there are inherent fundamental differences in the ideology across differing factions, but since you have proven time and time again that you are not willing to budge even a single inch on this, then I'm well within my rights to treat every definition you pretend to care about as just as false as your own opinions. Communism is inherently stateless.

I really don't buy that, considering that we still live on a planet with limited resources, so people are going to end up hoarding them one way or another. The best we can do is make sure that everyone has enough to live comfortably.

Everyone having enough to live comfortably is not possible within capitalism.

Like I said before, if we had Star Trek replicator technology and enough living space, food, and water for everybody without any possibility of running out, then that kind of government might work. But we're a long way from that.

The government is what's protecting the people hoarding space, food and water. There's actually quite a lot of all three of those things, possibly your mythical idea of "enough". You can't pretend to know what it takes for an equal society to exist when you refuse to acknowledge how it is intentionally being held back.

You admitted in your post that every attempt to institute a communist government ended up turning out badly, so excuse me for being skeptical of trying again today.

This was Aim's mistake in attempting compromise with your positions. There was not, at any point, a plan to wholly eliminate class, state or money. The ideology was to seize as much power for the ruling class as possible, same as conservatives and fascists. You can't judge equality as bad when your example is a bunch of people who said they wanted equality and were very obviously lying. Why do you believe these socially-conservative authoritarian nationalists when they call themselves leftists, but recognize the Nazis were not?

Frankly I'm getting pretty tired of this meandering around the subject. The bottom line is this: no matter what wrong definition you put forth for the past "communist" regimes, there is no meaningful way to equate them with the ideology held by the modern far-left in any way, be it theory or praxis. There is also no fair comparison between the ideology nor most of the actions of the far-left with anything the far-right has done or is still doing. Every single bit of reasoning you've tried to wring out of this take is either a false equivalence from the right, or straight up regurgitation of their ideals and propaganda. It is incredibly tiring and I hope one day you learn to sing a better song.

[Aim]

About the topic, I will never understand people getting so riled up about shit that happens in fiction. Like, it's not real.

As long as the writer isn't trying to send some kind of message to the audience that whatever immoral thing that happens in the story is completely okay, then let it be. People should be allowed to write whatever they want, and the audience should be allowed to choose whether or not they like it and if they want to continue to support it.

God this is so stupid, I’ve been contemplating whether to call this out or not.

You do realise that media affects audiences right? Especially young impressionable ones. It doesn’t help that sexual assault is normalised and rampant, so showing young boys a dirty old man constantly getting away with assault is sending a dangerous message.

About the topic, I will never understand people getting so riled up about shit that happens in fiction. Like, it's not real.

As long as the writer isn't trying to send some kind of message to the audience that whatever immoral thing that happens in the story is completely okay, then let it be. People should be allowed to write whatever they want, and the audience should be allowed to choose whether or not they like it and if they want to continue to support it.

It's simple - society got woke and realized that some of the stuff they tolerated in the past actually wasn't too acceptable, then they began to crack down on everything.

I’m not sure if you’re using woke in a positive context or…?

[Kefla]

It’s like with video games, should I go out and shoot people just cause I can in GTA? Ummm, no!

[Shaddy]

It’s like with video games, should I go out and shoot people just cause I can in GTA? Ummm, no!

I highly recommend you check out the first eight or nine pages of this thread where we do a deep dive into what a remarkably dumb and lazy answer this is to what must surely be a horrifying and incomprehensible concept of "not tacitly endorsing sexual assault in a TV show".

[MasenkoHA]

It’s like with video games, should I go out and shoot people just cause I can in GTA? Ummm, no!

……..


Once again for people in the back.


Society. Knows. Killing. Is. Bad. Sexual harassment. Especially toward women. Is undermined. Dismissed. And often pinned on the victim.


They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing. For. The. Love. Of. All. That. Is. Holy. Stop. Thinking. You’re. Making. A Good. Argument.

[Nagyzöld]

It’s like with video games, should I go out and shoot people just cause I can in GTA? Ummm, no!

No, because shooting people is in 99% of the cases punishable by jail. So if you're not a complete moron and you value your freedom, you don't do it. However, I bet many more people would actually do it if it wouldn't be so looked down upon by society and if there were high chances that they could get away with it without major consequences. Just like it happens with sexual abuse. Oh wait - or you thought you 'gotcha'ed us with that one?

[Kefla]

Wow. Way to move away from what the thread actually was. Nobody was trying to “Getcha”. Where was that started in my post that I was trying to catch anyone in anything? Nowhere… I posted my two cents. Moving right a long before this gets derailed any further.

[PurestEvil]

Friggin newbies not checking the earlier pages

[JulieYBM]

Women are treated sub-human by men to the point that unless a man mistreats one of us very broadly nobody will speak up. Working retail I see abusiveness all the time and can say nothing about it thanks to capitalistic and neoliberal bullshit that gives my employer the ability to fire me for telling a customer to fuck off.

Many men think that they own us and they'll yell, hit or gaslight us into thinking we're being crazy to get their way.

[Nagyzöld]

It's more like making this very broad statement lacking in any other details and totally irrelevant to the topic as argument; as if all these pages long posts and debates can be dismissed with "Roshi's behavior can't pose any threat cuz I play GTA and I don't shoot people in real life". How come we didn't think about this? Thanks for the input!

But it's funnier when people make public posts on public forums where people discuss stuff and act surprise when their public post gets replied to.

[Demon Prince Piccolo]

It’s like with video games, should I go out and shoot people just cause I can in GTA? Ummm, no!

I just knew someone was going to say this. It's like you haven't even bothered to listen to anything anyone's saying.

[kemuri07]

I like talking about politics like every other pretentious weeb who went to a single political science course...


But man I'm a bout ready to yeet this thread into the sun.

[goku the krump dancer]

This thread in particular has some merit to it because its a situation that happened in real life due to subject matter in the actual show.

Its not just another dumb thread asking if Toriyama hates women because Videl wasnt a bi-racial afro-latina girl twerking on TikTok while beating the life outta Super Boo.

[PurestEvil]

I like talking about politics like every other pretentious weeb who went to a single political science course...


But man I'm a bout ready to yeet this thread into the sun.

We should keep this thread as an intelligence litmus test