Western "Censorship" In Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness

Attachment 67734During an interview on 4Gamer, Producer Shuichi Kobayashi and Director Hiroshi Ogawa of Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness mentioned how the character Miki Sauvester will be showing a little less skin in the western release than originally shown in the Japanese version.

Miki originally used to wear more "normal-looking" panties under her short dress but Kobayasi mentioned that they received feedback from abroad that it was inappropriate for a teen to be wearing "sexualized underwear". To combat this, they added more fabric onto her model turning the underwear into shorts. Director Hiroshi Ogawa had laughed and said that making the change was "regrettable."

Surprisingly, the character Fiore will have her checkered outfit untouched. Dualshockers elaborated on her design with the Character designer "Akiman":

"... the idea for her costume came up by chance, as in the series it has always been considered all right to design sexy outfit. Yet, in the industry there have been recent issues about revealing clothes, causing developers to have to make fixes at later stages of development. That’s why he purposely designed Fiore’s costume to be sexy, but still not showing too much skin."

Take a look yourselves. If you're not keen on seeing butts, ignore this spoiler!

Before:
http://cdn3.dualshockers.com/wp-cont...3/09dd921a.jpg

After
http://cdn4.dualshockers.com/wp-cont...3/34a67125.jpg

What are you thoughts on changes to characters like this?

oh my God


People are gonna lose their trout again

I . . . really wish they had decided to change Fiore's outfit instead. Not as a matter of sexiness or censorship, either -- that outfit just looks really bad. ^^;

""""""""Censorship""""""""

There are not enough air quotes in the world to adequately dilute that word's meaning to make it appropriate for this discussion. So, basically what has happened here: a company has made a creative/business decision based on how it perceives the taste of its western demographic.

​The horror.

I will import it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

""""""""Censorship""""""""

There are not enough air quotes in the world to adequately dilute that word's meaning to make it appropriate for this discussion. So, basically what has happened here: a company has made a creative/business decision based on how it perceives the taste of its western demographic.

​The horror.

---

Yeah some people are a lot more upset. Like the dualshockers link I sourced from, their comments are full of people every upset about this change

I know, I was looking at 250 Eurogamer comments earlier. It's baffling why it's such a big deal.

Do you think we can treat every change in the same way? Did the SJWs force Square to include airships in FFXV?

I think there's a lot of hiding behind "protecting the artistic vision" from people who are actually just interested in seeing sexy butts. And it's fine to want to see sexy butts, I'm sure many of us here on eoff are fans of such, I just wish we could admit that's what it's about.

There will be a very important plot reason that you have to have these outfits scantily clad, and then you will feel bad for judging prematurely.

Have you seen the backlash for Blizz about Overwatch yesterday/today? More butt craziness!

I keep seeing that "protecting the artistic vision" angle too. Just say you like butts! It's okay! But them adding some extra underwear, on SO5, or changing it to a less sexual pose when a character wears really tight clothing, on overwatch, isn't really destroying artistic vision or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Have you seen the backlash for Blizz about Overwatch yesterday/today? More butt craziness!
.

---

Oh wow, I was overreacting so hard to the overreaction from Overwatch on other sites that I forgot we weren't actually talking about Overwatch in this thread!!!

I think everything I said applies exactly the same to Star Ocean though, so I think it's still on topic xD

Quote:

---

But them adding some extra underwear, on SO5, or changing it to a less sexual pose when a character wears really tight clothing, on overwatch, isn't really destroying artistic vision or anything

---

Exactly. I mean, it is possible to make such sweeping changes that you do compromise the 'artistic vision'. Remember in the original Sailor Moon anime where Sailors Neptune and Uranus were "cousins" in the US dub? Yes, America, sure thing. Very close lesbian cousins.

The response from the commenters on these sites is more appropriate for that level of change than "She's wearing slightly less risqué underwear".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I know, I was looking at 250 Eurogamer comments earlier. It's baffling why it's such a big deal.

Do you think we can treat every change in the same way? Did the SJWs force Square to include airships in FFXV?

I think there's a lot of hiding behind "protecting the artistic vision" from people who are actually just interested in seeing sexy butts. And it's fine to want to see sexy butts, I'm sure many of us here on eoff are fans of such, I just wish we could admit that's what it's about.

---

Attachment 67736

The argument from the guy who said "overwatch chick shouldn't do this" made sense. If that character has a specific personality and having them do a victory pose that clashes with that personality, it doesn't serve a purpose other than for fan service.


The underwear thing doesn't bother me, if she's of an age that it would be questionable for me to want to look up her skirt in the first place I just wouldn't look up her skirt.

Oh man a guy just tried to argue with me on twitter that we shouldn't make changes because of the artistic integrity thing. Said he's passionate about games and so he cares more about those changes. Then when i mention the Lightning's bigger boobs thing he said that was okay so the game could get more "attention".

You can't say you're against changing things because of artistic integrity and then say it's okay if it's boobs being changed. Just say you're upset cause you like sexual things. That's okay if you like that! Use that as your angle, don't try to veil it as something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Oh man a guy just tried to argue with me on twitter that we shouldn't make changes because of the artistic integrity thing. Said he's passionate about games and so he cares more about those changes. Then when i mention the Lightning's bigger boobs thing he said that was okay so the game could get more "attention".

You can't say you're against changing things because of artistic integrity and then say it's okay if it's boobs being changed. Just say you're upset cause you like sexual things. That's okay if you like that! Use that as your angle, don't try to veil it as something else.

---

"EVEN with the changes to the breasts, it didn't make it better".

Look up, twitter person, that spec flying over your head is the point. Sorry, I went and looked at your argument because I was curious, I hope that wasn't weird. My absolute favourite was when he pulled a "First they came for the socialists" argument, but with Butts.

It makes me sad that the west has become so full of uppity whiners that Japan actually feels the need to take these measures before releasing their games here.

That being said, I don't care about Star Ocean or anime panties, so I won't be losing any sleep over this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Oh man a guy just tried to argue with me on twitter that we shouldn't make changes because of the artistic integrity thing. Said he's passionate about games and so he cares more about those changes. Then when i mention the Lightning's bigger boobs thing he said that was okay so the game could get more "attention".

You can't say you're against changing things because of artistic integrity and then say it's okay if it's boobs being changed. Just say you're upset cause you like sexual things. That's okay if you like that! Use that as your angle, don't try to veil it as something else.

---

"EVEN with the changes to the breasts, it didn't make it better".

Look up, twitter person, that spec flying over your head is the point. Sorry, I went and looked at your argument because I was curious, I hope that wasn't weird. My absolute favourite was when he pulled a "First they came for the socialists" argument, but with Butts.

---

Like technically this SO5 character is listed as 18 but she's modeled younger looking. It's kind of odd we're seeing her underwear anyway with that case. And the Tracer thing, it is a little out of character. Comparing the changes to the end of all boobs and butts is over the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Like technically this SO5 character is listed as 18 but she's modeled younger looking. It's kind of odd we're seeing her underwear anyway with that case. And the Tracer thing, it is a little out of character. Comparing the changes to the end of all boobs and butts is over the top.

---

Honestly if there was going to be any "controversy" here I would have expected it to come from fishnet-witch.

I find it unnecesary and it bugs me that companies still feel the need to do this for the western releases of certain games. Fire Emblem and Bravely Default come to mind, and it was just as unnecesary there, too. (Not because of "artistic value" or some such, don't be silly.)

I know this will come as a shock to some, but have at it anyway: people outside of Japan like boobs and butts too. We won't go into mortified cardiac arrest just because we saw a flash of panties or some cleavage. Yeah, it's fan-service, so why do fans outside of Japan not get served? <.< This is FF3 on the SNES levels of silly changes.

And for anyone decrying that some of these characters might be underage; relax, they're not real, they don't really exist, they are polygons and pixels on your tv and if some people out there like seeing said character's panties it doesn't mean said people are about to run out the door and molest the first minor they come across. Breathe. Calm down. Put down that phone, no need to call the cops.

Sheesh.

I'm not seeing the big deal either way. To see both changes, you'd have to hike up the camera in strange angles. It's far less egregious than FFXV's foray into censorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

I find it unnecesary and it bugs me that companies still feel the need to do this for the western releases of certain games. Fire Emblem and Bravely Default come to mind, and it was just as unnecesary there, too. (Not because of "artistic value" or some such, don't be silly.)

I know this will come as a shock to some, but have at it anyway: people outside of Japan like boobs and butts too. We won't go into mortified cardiac arrest just because we saw a flash of panties or some cleavage. Yeah, it's fan-service, so why do fans outside of Japan not get served? <.< This is FF3 on the SNES levels of silly changes.

And for anyone decrying that some of these characters might be underage; relax, they're not real, they don't really exist, they are polygons and pixels on your tv and if some people out there like seeing said character's panties it doesn't mean said people are about to run out the door and molest the first minor they come across. Breathe. Calm down. Put down that phone, no need to call the cops.

Sheesh.

---

Ehhhhhhh


EHHHHhhhhhh

Still extremely not healthy of a thing to encourage, pixelated or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Ehhhhhhh


EHHHHhhhhhh

Still extremely not healthy of a thing to encourage, pixelated or not.

---

Encourage what? Not having a phobia of boobs, butts and panties in a video game? Heaven forbid our poor, sheltered western children learn that human beings have sex and that babies are squeezed out of a woman's cooch and not brought by the white stork. :roll2

Relax. In general people are sensible enough to know that what can be done in video games cannot (always) be done in real life. Otherwise we'd all be shooting and t-bagging everyone out there who we don't like, stealing their cars and shagging their wives. But we don't do that, do we? Indeed we do not, because we're not @$$holes. This is no different.

The fact that glorified murder, torture, terrorism, bloodshed and theft in games is totally accepted by people, but as soon as a character shows some cleavage or her panties all of gamerland collectively gasps in utter shock and indignation decrying "oh my, should we really allow such a thing? I mean, we wouldn't want to encourage such behaviour, would we? What if we offend anyone, heaven forbid?! Better censor that trout!", never ceases to baffle me.

It's all much ado about nothing. Don't want to see your character's panties? Don't tilt the camera so you can peer under her skirt. Don't want to see Edea Lee in the Bravo Bikini? Don't have her wear it. Boom, done.

You're welcome.

Not to encourage young girls showing their skimoy underwear. Sounds like you're all for teenage girls in their underwear. That's.... Well okay....

Have blood have gore, have sexuality. Let's just try to not model young kids that way.

It's just as creepy as the guys who had a countdown for Emma Watson to hit 18. That's weird, she's still young. It's not a magical number.

Japanese games are happy to sexualize young girls and yes as a western i find that so smurfing weird. It's not a just "don't look" kind if option it's a that makes me feel uncomfortable. If the girl looked older, than that's more acceptable but kids are kids and we shouldn't sexualize them.

As someone who had so much pressure as a teen to be "sexy" and acted older than I should have, having characters be this way just creates even more issues for girls who are like how I was.

So no. People have body pillows of these type of characters. Or various other word stuff. People aren't sensible. And that's what's sooooo weird.

The tracer stuff, that's alright. the character IS older and acts and looks it. It's no big deal. this character looks young and that's weird.

If you can't see an issue with a young girl showing her underwear off, pixelated or not, I'm worried. From your response though you're missing the youn girl point and latching on the "well violence is okay why not boobs!" And that wasn't the point. It was the character being so young. That's what's I'm arguing so please try to re-read and argue the point mentioned first.

It's okay to want boobs. That's alright. Have boobs and cleavage, I've never said not to. Just don't sexaulize teens and don't do something that's out of character for a character in an effort to make them sexy, that's weird.

Also, I'm super relaxed BTW, laying in bed ATM. So please stop telling me to relax. Just because I share a differing opinion doesn't mean I'm throwing fits. You'll do best to understand that in these here internet conversations.

Are the people who watch the young girl's panties actively going out to see rl minors panties? No? Then shut up and let them watch all their loli panties and hentai that they want. Whatever makes someone happy and does not harm anyone else is not something anyone should have any sort of problem with, period. That is all there is to it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not planning to go out on the street and molest the first child I see just because I don't see a problem with panties on a pre-18 year old in a video game, just as I am not going to go out and buy a gun just because I like shooting demons in DooM. So you can take your worry for my mental health back, thank you, I don't need it.

As for the people who do molest young girls or want to see their panties, those would have done so whether or not they could see video game panties or not, so even then there is no argument against this, just as there's none with violence.

Putting all of that aside, I would also like to inform you that people do think about sex and have sexual interests long before they're eightteen. Sex does not suddenly "switch on" when someone becomes eightteen. So if a fifteen, sixteen or even nineteen year old is interested in a fifteen or sixteen year old's attractiveness, know what that is? Natural. I know, it's unbelievable, but true.

Also, you do need to relax, given you feel the need to be worried over things that are not at all worrisome. So yes, relax. People have weird interests, it happens, it's okay, chill out, relax, breeeaaaathe, there's no mass conspiracy to make you like teen panties, nor are you surrounded by would-be teen-rapists. There is absolutely nothing for you to be worried about if you would just mind your own business and let people like what they like and do what they want (bearing in mind nobody else gets hurt or damaged - without consent, that is, as some people are in to pain - by what they like or do, of course, as I said before). Relax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I know, I was looking at 250 Eurogamer comments earlier. It's baffling why it's such a big deal.

Do you think we can treat every change in the same way? Did the SJWs force Square to include airships in FFXV?

I think there's a lot of hiding behind "protecting the artistic vision" from people who are actually just interested in seeing sexy butts. And it's fine to want to see sexy butts, I'm sure many of us here on eoff are fans of such, I just wish we could admit that's what it's about.

---

Attachment 67736

---

I don't think I ever "this'd" so much, you guys. This is exactly the point I made when I made a thread on a similar topic waaay back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

Are the people who watch the young girl's panties actively going out to see rl minors panties? No? Then shut up and let them watch all their loli panties and hentai that they want. Whatever makes someone happy and does not harm anyone else is not something anyone should have any sort of problem with, period. That is all there is to it.

---

Do actually agree with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

So no. People have body pillows of these type of characters. Or various other word stuff. People aren't sensible. And that's what's sooooo weird.

---

Hi! I have a daki of an anime character. Canonically in the show she's 17. Is that why I like her? No, I just like her design. I don't think you can really apply the same standards to fictional characters because a) they're not real and cannot be exploited and b) they often look nothing like actual humans look like. You can create a character that you'd guess is 30 years old and say "actually she's 15". Is that creepy? With characters like this age is just a number in the biography, it's pretty meaningless.

HAVING SAID THAT...

Quote:

---

As someone who had so much pressure as a teen to be "sexy" and acted older than I should have, having characters be this way just creates even more issues for girls who are like how I was.

---

I totally get this, and can definitely see why it can make people uncomfortable especially when you're deliberately trying to make your underage characters sex objects. To have "Here's a young character who also happens to be cute" is one thing, to say "Here's a young character we've put in effort to make you lust over" is somewhat different. Now, for the reasons above I'm not convinced there's anything inherently wrong with the latter for the people who enjoy it, but it's clear that others will feel uncomfortable with it and it's probably not material you want to expose actual kids to.

With that in mind, maybe a mass market RPG isn't the most sensible place for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not planning to go out on the street and molest the first child I see just because I don't see a problem with panties on a pre-18 year old in a video game, just as I am not going to go out and buy a gun just because I like shooting demons in DooM. So you can take your worry for my mental health back, thank you, I don't need it.

As for the people who do molest young girls or want to see their panties, those would have done so whether or not they could see video game panties or not, so even then there is no argument against this, just as there's none with violence.

Putting all of that aside, I would also like to inform you that people do think about sex and have sexual interests long before they're eightteen. Sex does not suddenly "switch on" when someone becomes eightteen. So if a fifteen, sixteen or even nineteen year old is interested in a fifteen or sixteen year old's attractiveness, know what that is? Natural. I know, it's unbelievable, but true.

---

I doubt Freya was trying to imply you're some kind of closet molester just 'cuz you like short skirts on Star Ocean characters.

To be honest I don't even know the first thing about Star Ocean or its characters, having never played any of the games and no real intent to do so any time soon, so there's no real personal stake for me in this and I honestly have no real preference to long or short skirts on these characters. :p Just using it as an example to make my point, in this case.

Thing is, I'm not saying Freya can't be uncomfortable with it, or that anyone can't be uncomfortable with it (as long as they're not trying to actively hinder anyone who is comfortable with it from being comfortable with it, that is), I'm just arguing that that's no real reason to put this censorship into place. Let people decide for themselves what they want, is what I'm trying to say in the end. Those who are uncomfortable with panty shots can then opt to not buy the game or to not play with that character or take care to never aim their camera that way, while those who love it can stare at their video game panties all day long.

But having the choice made for us, as if all western gamers have a phobia of panties or wouldn't understand or would be uncomfortable with it, just feels belittling. I can make up my own mind, tyvm, developers, so I would like the option of choice. There's no need to talk down to us like this. We're not fragile and we don't need sheltering from things that you think will weird us out. Let me decide if I find it weird or not, so that I can then make a decision of what to do next.

If Freya doesn't want to buy Star Ocean because there are teen panties in it, that's fine, her choice. If Steve wants to buy Star Ocean because it has teen panties in it, his choice, he can do so. However, the line for me is drawn if Freya wants to take away Steve's teen panties because she's uncomfortable with it. If Steve is not hurting anyone (without their consent), nobody, not Freya nor anyone else, has the right to take away Steve's video game teen panties, no matter how weird she thinks Steve is.

Because if we're honestly going to censor things because people are 'uncomfortable' with certain matters, well... Do I really need to point out how slippery that slope is?

You're arguing for more teen panties to be shown. You know how odd that sounds?

Slippery slope? You sound like the twitter guy. End of the world if a teen character shows less butt. Oh no.

This isn't to call out for every boob and butt to be censored, it's requesting that teens don't show off their underwear as that promotes the mentality that it's okay to look at young girls in such a way. You can think that way, you can like that stuff, it isn't a war against thoughts. That doesn't mean those thoughts of wanting teenage underwear is an okay thing. Pixelated, animated, or not. Just because you can think that way and decide that's okay, doesn't mean it is a respectable thought and opinion to have for others. You're free to have it, and i'm free to say it's weird and uncomfortable. But why do you and the strange choices of a Japanese developer get to dictate that that is okay? Culturally in japan it is more acceptable to be creepy about it and show young girls like that. In western markets it's not. Changing things to fit culturally with other markets isn't a bad thing, it's respectable to those cultures.

I don't have a phobia of panties, or butts, or cleavage. Far from it. I just don't think it's healthy to promote the attraction to teens in a sexual manner.

Damn, I didn't think I'd find this crossover into EOFF. I don't really care for that trout. I mean good. I find it interesting that all the people I've seen defending it on the net are men.

Considering all media is geared to cater to the male gaze and men have become accustomed that they get everything they want from the media, it's no surprise that they're acting butthurt that someone is taking away something they usually get handed to them on a plate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

Because if we're honestly going to censor things because people are 'uncomfortable' with certain matters, well... Do I really need to point out how slippery that slope is?

---

Again - not censorship. Not even close to censorship.

To be clear - censorship happens when people's free speech is systemically limited. Think letters that get intercepted with important data erased out with a marker, or being thrown into jail for saying (not even acting on - just saying) a political opinion that is different from what the government allows, or newspapers being banned from posting anything else than what the government allows because other content could threaten their authority.

A company willingly deciding to cover up a character in their game for a foreign release to avoid backlash stemming from Values Dissonance is not censorship in any stretch of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

You're arguing for more teen panties to be shown. You know how odd that sounds?

---

You're arguing that because you don't like something, it shouldn't be made, nor should anyone like it and if anyone does like it they should be ashamed of themselves. You are judgemental, selfish and deluded, thinking you and you alone have the right to decide how everyone else should feel about something you don't like.

Quote:

---

Slippery slope? You sound like the twitter guy. End of the world if a teen character shows less butt. Oh no.

---

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all, because you don't want to pay attention to what I say, you just want to posture yourself as if morally superior and holier than thou. Here, I shall spell it out for you, your righteousness: I did not say no teenage butts are the end of the world. I said that censoring something because it makes someone uncomfortable is a questionable practice, for reasons that should be obvious. There is always someone going to be offended or uncomfortable with something.

Shall we ban homosexuality from games too? Lots of people uncomfortable with that. Shall we ban black people from appearing in games? I can think of quite a few people uncomfortable with that. How about murder? Lots of people uncomfortable with that. Brown coloured buildings, some people find that uncomfortable. Etc.

But let me guess. "Those are TOTALLY different things!" right? Your whole shtick with "we shouldn't encourage such thoughts" reeks of tunnel-vissioned hypocrisy, because again, murder, violence, theft, racism, all of those are perfectly okay in your book, else you'd be vehemently arguing for the censorship of those too. None of those things I mentioned is culturally accepted by any culture, by the way, we all think those things are bad. Except you're not doing that. Not a peep. You don't think having games where you get to snipe other people in the head, or hack and slash a whole city's population, or committing robberies or paid assassinations encourages bad thoughts? Some games even revel in how they glorify murder, violence and bloodshed, but none of that makes you pause? Not even a second?

How convenient.

Clearly when it comes to violence, we can handle ourselves and you trust us to be able to behave acceptably, but when it comes to sex, obviously western men are cavemen beasts barely restraining themselves from raping everything in sight who are obviously in need of righteous women such as yourself to lecture them about what they can or cannot do in real life as soon as a teenage girl's panties get flashed by accident. Thank god you were there to tell me that if I went out on the street and grabbed a girl to see her panties, I'd be doing a very bad thing and should be arrested, I never would have guessed! I mean, it was in a video game, so I thought it would be okay, just like last week when I went on a shooting spree in my local grocery store because DooM taught me to do so, but thankfully, thanks to you saying how despicable and weird I am, I know totally better! I never would have been able to conclude this on my own!

And end sarcasm.

Going to practice mass murder in Dark Souls now for my killing spree next week in my town square, as the game clearly encourages me to do so and since nobody changed it, it means it's perfectly okay to have such thoughts.

Why yes, I'm taking the urine now, because the whole argument of "encouraging bad thoughts" is bollocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

Because if we're honestly going to censor things because people are 'uncomfortable' with certain matters, well... Do I really need to point out how slippery that slope is?

---

Again - not censorship. Not even close to censorship.

---

I'm really not going to argue the semantics of what to call it, since it's hardly relevant. Point is they changed something when I feel they shouldn't have, because we're not all braindead and can understand to not repeat certain things in real life that we do in games. Call it censorship, call it editing, call it rainbowskyfishing, doesn't really matter to me.

Reminder to not personally attack other members. Cut it out.

Look, Elipzo, I can see we fundamentally disagree what is okay and what isn't okay. That's not going to change. You're okay with teen underwear, I am not. And that's okay to have differences like that.

But changing something ever so slightly to fit a cultural market isn't a bad thing. It's showing respect for other cultures. That's what square enix did. It isn't them changing their whole vision. It's just them being respectful, which is a good thing and more people should be more respectful to others.

Quote:

---

Going to practice mass murder in Dark Souls now for my killing spree next week in my town square, as the game clearly encourages me to do so and since nobody changed it, it means it's perfectly okay to have such thoughts.

---

At work and can't reply in detail, but false equivalency much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

To be honest I don't even know the first thing about Star Ocean or its characters, having never played any of the games and no real intent to do so any time soon, so there's no real personal stake for me in this and I honestly have no real preference to long or short skirts on these characters. :p Just using it as an example to make my point, in this case.

Thing is, I'm not saying Freya can't be uncomfortable with it, or that anyone can't be uncomfortable with it (as long as they're not trying to actively hinder anyone who is comfortable with it from being comfortable with it, that is), I'm just arguing that that's no real reason to put this censorship into place. Let people decide for themselves what they want, is what I'm trying to say in the end. Those who are uncomfortable with panty shots can then opt to not buy the game or to not play with that character or take care to never aim their camera that way, while those who love it can stare at their video game panties all day long.

But having the choice made for us, as if all western gamers have a phobia of panties or wouldn't understand or would be uncomfortable with it, just feels belittling. I can make up my own mind, tyvm, developers, so I would like the option of choice. There's no need to talk down to us like this. We're not fragile and we don't need sheltering from things that you think will weird us out. Let me decide if I find it weird or not, so that I can then make a decision of what to do next.

If Freya doesn't want to buy Star Ocean because there are teen panties in it, that's fine, her choice. If Steve wants to buy Star Ocean because it has teen panties in it, his choice, he can do so. However, the line for me is drawn if Freya wants to take away Steve's teen panties because she's uncomfortable with it. If Steve is not hurting anyone (without their consent), nobody, not Freya nor anyone else, has the right to take away Steve's video game teen panties, no matter how weird she thinks Steve is.

Because if we're honestly going to censor things because people are 'uncomfortable' with certain matters, well... Do I really need to point out how slippery that slope is?

---

You seem to be operating under the idea that people are "afraid" of panties or that people "think it's weird" to want to look at them. People are not afraid of panties. Have you ever considered that young girls and women don't want to be sexualized, and that this kind of portrayal encourages that sexualization?

It is harmful to women in real time, in real life. Worse; it sexualizes young girls, and they in turn have to deal with that from men and boys who play these games. Your horrifying arguments of "are people running around molesting children in real life?! NO?!" are perplexing. You flat out don't know that; there's no way that you could. Additionally, it is a different argument completely from video game violence vs. real life violence. Sexual objectification from characters being portrayed this way can be exhibited in real life on a much smaller scale that does not lead to bloodshed in the streets with twenty dead, but it still affects people (women) in a very real way. It also lets men get away with it in a very real way.

It's honestly outrageously offensive for you to sit here posting about how it doesn't harm anyone and how people should just be allowed their sexual perversions along with your fearmongering about "a slippery slope" of censorship. The fact that you so easily boil it down to "it's not hurting anyone" is a direct objectification of women and young girls because in saying that, you validate real-life sexualization in the same way; that "it's not hurting anyone." That de-humanizes us. You are wrong that it does not hurt anyone. It hurts us.

It's not "a slippery slope of censorship." It's something that we would like to have stop happening because it affects us in real life. We would like to stop being sexualized and having young girls be sexualized. Arguing that video games do not encourage that is false. Every sexualization and objectification encourages it, period. Not only that, it is horrifyingly alarming that you are making these arguments with tones of pedophilia apologism and trying to normalize these concepts.

This shouldn't even be in line with censorship. It should be in line with human decency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

To be honest I don't even know the first thing about Star Ocean or its characters, having never played any of the games and no real intent to do so any time soon, so there's no real personal stake for me in this and I honestly have no real preference to long or short skirts on these characters. :p Just using it as an example to make my point, in this case.

Thing is, I'm not saying Freya can't be uncomfortable with it, or that anyone can't be uncomfortable with it (as long as they're not trying to actively hinder anyone who is comfortable with it from being comfortable with it, that is), I'm just arguing that that's no real reason to put this censorship into place. Let people decide for themselves what they want, is what I'm trying to say in the end. Those who are uncomfortable with panty shots can then opt to not buy the game or to not play with that character or take care to never aim their camera that way, while those who love it can stare at their video game panties all day long.

But having the choice made for us, as if all western gamers have a phobia of panties or wouldn't understand or would be uncomfortable with it, just feels belittling. I can make up my own mind, tyvm, developers, so I would like the option of choice. There's no need to talk down to us like this. We're not fragile and we don't need sheltering from things that you think will weird us out. Let me decide if I find it weird or not, so that I can then make a decision of what to do next.

If Freya doesn't want to buy Star Ocean because there are teen panties in it, that's fine, her choice. If Steve wants to buy Star Ocean because it has teen panties in it, his choice, he can do so. However, the line for me is drawn if Freya wants to take away Steve's teen panties because she's uncomfortable with it. If Steve is not hurting anyone (without their consent), nobody, not Freya nor anyone else, has the right to take away Steve's video game teen panties, no matter how weird she thinks Steve is.

Because if we're honestly going to censor things because people are 'uncomfortable' with certain matters, well... Do I really need to point out how slippery that slope is?

---

You seem to be operating under the idea that people are "afraid" of panties or that people "think it's weird" to want to look at them. People are not afraid of panties. Have you ever considered that young girls and women don't want to be sexualized, and that this kind of portrayal encourages that sexualization?

It is harmful to women in real time, in real life. Worse; it sexualizes young girls, and they in turn have to deal with that from men and boys who play these games. Your horrifying arguments of "are people running around molesting children in real life?! NO?!" are perplexing. You flat out don't know that; there's no way that you could. Additionally, it is a different argument completely from video game violence vs. real life violence. Sexual objectification from characters being portrayed this way can be exhibited in real life on a much smaller scale that does not lead to bloodshed in the streets with twenty dead, but it still affects people (women) in a very real way. It also lets men get away with it in a very real way.

It's honestly outrageously offensive for you to sit here posting about how it doesn't harm anyone and how people should just be allowed their sexual perversions along with your fearmongering about "a slippery slope" of censorship. The fact that you so easily boil it down to "it's not hurting anyone" is a direct objectification of women and young girls because in saying that, you validate real-life sexualization in the same way; that "it's not hurting anyone." You are wrong that it does not hurt anyone. It hurts us.

It's not "a slippery slope of censorship." It's something that we would like to have stop happening because it affects us in real life. We would like to stop being sexualized and having young girls be sexualized. Arguing that video games do not encourage that is false. Every sexualization and objectification encourages it, period. Not only that, it is horrifyingly alarming that you are making these arguments with tones of pedophilia apologism and trying to normalize these concepts.

This shouldn't even be in line with censorship. It should be in line with human decency.

---

Just to add a bit to this excellent deconstruction, I have a question to you, Elipzio. At what age were you first harassed in a sexual manner? I can't, of course, evaluate your experience, but as a cis straight man, I can say that hasn't happened ever, and any expressions of sexual interest from the opposite sex haven't happened to me until I was well into my late teens.

And do you know what the women I know tell me when I ask them this question? 12. 10. Even 8. Imagine, an 8-year-old girl, being called obscene sexual things by old men on the streets and touched in inappropriate places by sleezy uncles. This happens all the time, and the media and its objectification of women is the direct cause of this. The younger the portrayal, the younger it seems acceptable for those people to do it.

So yes, this is a serious social issue and has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with listening to and protecting the women who later get harassed because of this

Me irl right now at this whole thread.

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/upl...ter-Crying.gif

Shorty is right.

I could write my own wall of text too, but I cannot be bothered because I'm really not interested in Star Ocean. I am however sick of boob shots and under skirt shots because just what is the point? and in before "but men are sexualised too!" yes, yes they are. I am so aware that they are, but sexualisation of men in the media does not then have an impact on young men like it does on young women.

Young women like me, who get catcalled by arseholes from vans as they speed past, who gets stared up and down if I wear a skirt, who is actually completely put off wearing skirts/low cut tops because it just encourages men to sexualise me because it is just so 'normal'.

So in the end, in simple terms, I guess the issue here isn't "ew, this is gross, I don't wanna see it", but "I don't want to see my body reduced to a piece of meat over and over and over"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

To be clear - censorship happens when people's free speech is systemically limited. Think letters that get intercepted with important data erased out with a marker, or being thrown into jail for saying (not even acting on - just saying) a political opinion that is different from what the government allows, or newspapers being banned from posting anything else than what the government allows because other content could threaten their authority.

A company willingly deciding to cover up a character in their game for a foreign release to avoid backlash stemming from Values Dissonance is not censorship in any stretch of the word.

---

This is interesting. I wonder, if Kate Chopin's The Storm was not published during her lifetime due to its sexual themes and positive depiction of adultery, especially coming from a female author, being deemed socially unacceptable -- but not being governmentally blocked -- does this mean her being prevented from freely expressing her ideas, based not on law but on public perception, is not an act of censorship?

Can you put panty shots in your game? Absolutely. Should you put them in your game? Not in this instance, no.

If it's going to be a pornographic game, fair enough. It is what it says it is and everyone consuming it expects sexuality. Slipping them into a perfectly standard RPG is just sad though. Do you have such little faith in your game's ability to captivate your audience that you have to resort to the lowest common denominator? Fair play to them for recognising the cultural differences and tailoring their product to their intended audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

Can you put panty shots in your game? Absolutely. Should you put them in your game? Not in this instance, no.

If it's going to be a pornographic game, fair enough. It is what it says it is and everyone consuming it expects sexuality. Slipping them into a perfectly standard RPG is just sad though. Do you have such little faith in your game's ability to captivate your audience that you have to resort to the lowest common denominator? Fair play to them for recognising the cultural differences and tailoring their product to their intended audience.

---

Sadly, this is becoming more and more common as otaku culture is being pandered to increasingly often in games that are relatively mainstream

To quote Miyazaki, "Anime was a mistake" :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rez09

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

To be clear - censorship happens when people's free speech is systemically limited. Think letters that get intercepted with important data erased out with a marker, or being thrown into jail for saying (not even acting on - just saying) a political opinion that is different from what the government allows, or newspapers being banned from posting anything else than what the government allows because other content could threaten their authority.

A company willingly deciding to cover up a character in their game for a foreign release to avoid backlash stemming from Values Dissonance is not censorship in any stretch of the word.

---

This is interesting. I wonder, if Kate Chopin's The Storm was not published during her lifetime due to its sexual themes and positive depiction of adultery, especially coming from a female author, being deemed socially unacceptable -- but not being governmentally blocked -- does this mean her being prevented from freely expressing her ideas, based not on law but on public perception, is not an act of censorship?

---

This is an act of censorship because her freedom of speech is limited. Nowadays, such things would be published by niche audiences. The difference is that in the case of Star Ocean, Bravely Second, Dragon Quest VIII, what have you, the decision to change is made by the authors in order to respect cultural differences and in general just be sensitive and express basic human decency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

Sadly, this is becoming more and more common as otaku culture is being pandered to increasingly often in games that are relatively mainstream

---

Also, as an enjoyer of said culture, I don't need it to pander to me in all my mainstream games. If I want a game about Loli catgirls, Nekopara is right there on Steam for a hell of a lot less money than Star Ocean (and a hell of a lot more cat girl).

It's kinda like... if you wanna go to the sex shop and get some porn; great! That's totally cool. When the local supermarket doesn't put that same content on its shelves; that's not censorship. That's just the supermarket realising that maybe their audience by and large isn't gonna be too pleased with it.

Maybe it's also illegal to put porn in the supermarket, I don't know. But for the sake of the example lets pretend its not ^^

Blah blah blah objectification, cry me a river. Come back when you complain about being murdered or robbed and then maybe, maybe I'll allow your double hipocrisy standards to slip through and take your arguments seriously. "Violence is totally okay but sex crimes are not!", lol, you guys are hilarious. It's either both or nothing, but saying that games that encourage one thought are fine but ones that so-called encourage the other are not is some fine double standards y'all are having there. Get real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

Blah blah blah objectification, cry me a river. Come back when you complain about being murdered or robbed and then maybe, maybe I'll allow your double hipocrisy standards to slip through and take your arguments seriously. "Violence is totally okay but sex crimes are not!", lol, you guys are hilarious. It's either both or nothing, but saying that games that encourage one thought are fine but ones that so-called encourage the other are not is some fine double standards y'all are having there. Get real.

---

I guess in order to be taken seriously about objectification and violence toward women, I need to mention that myself and many other women I am close to - women who are on this online forum who are reading these responses - have been sexually assaulted or raped by men who have objectified them.

So get real yourself. There are no double standards here. Just women asking to be treated like humans and hoping for video games to not perpetuate violence and objectification toward women. If that's too much to ask from people like you, you are the problem here. Your violent response above is an attempt to justify how you want to further objectify women and young girls. That is disgusting.

It must be nice to live in a world where you don't worry about how media is going to rationalize how you can be mistreated by the opposite sex. Any measures to curb that like "western censorship" I am 100% for.

The fact that you think video games so-called teaching kids to objectify women is a heinous crime while at the same time thinking games that so-called teach kids to pillage, murder and plunder are ok is what's wrong here, not me. Those are your double standards and if you don't like being called out on them, well, then don't have them. In my eyes either they are both to be allowed, or neither, because otherwise why one but not the other? They're both terrible things. But I guess you need to be murdered first before you have the right to speak out against games promoting murder, right? I guess that would give the victims of abuse the advantage on the complaint train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

At what age were you first harassed in a sexual manner? I can't, of course, evaluate your experience, but as a cis straight man, I can say that hasn't happened ever, and any expressions of sexual interest from the opposite sex haven't happened to me until I was well into my late teens.

And do you know what the women I know tell me when I ask them this question? 12. 10. Even 8. Imagine, an 8-year-old girl, being called obscene sexual things by old men on the streets and touched in inappropriate places by sleezy uncles. This happens all the time, and the media and its objectification of women is the direct cause of this. The younger the portrayal, the younger it seems acceptable for those people to do it.

---

Another very valid (and very scary) question to ask is "When were you last sexually harassed?" Again, as a cis straight man my answer is never. Ask a female friend the same question and the answer is very often: "Earlier today".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

"Violence is totally okay but sex crimes are not!"

---

1) That was not said at any point in this thread.
2) Even if it were, "Let's allow sex crimes as well" doesn't seem like a particularly strong response.

Quote:

---

It's either both or nothing

---

Wouldn't it be great if life were that simple? Look, there is a very large disconnect between virtual violence and game violence. Most of the time, when you shoot someone in the face with a shotgun in game, you don't have people playing it thinking "I hate how this normalizes being shot in the face with a shotgun. This is a very real problem that I experience regularly in every day life and it causes me distress to relive it".

When it comes to lusting after little girls, however, that is a very real, very relatable problem that many, many women have been on the receiving end of. So casually including it in a mainstream video game isn't exactly sensitive. Returning to the point of violence - how often do you see domestic violence in a video game? Very, very rarely, because most developers are smart enough to realise that a) it doesn't add anything of value to their game and b) it's going to upset a significant number of their potential audience who have been victims of it. So they choose to stick to the 'fantasy' violence of the movies that generally won't trigger anxiety attacks in 50% of the audience.

Not censorship; just business sense and tact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

The fact that you think video games so-called teaching kids to objectify women is a heinous crime while at the same time thinking games that so-called teach kids to pillage, murder and plunder are ok is what's wrong here, not me. Those are your double standards and if you don't like being called out on them, well, then don't have them. In my eyes either they are both to be allowed, or neither, because otherwise why one but not the other? They're both terrible things. But I guess you need to be murdered first before you have the right to speak out against games promoting murder, right? I guess that would give the victims of abuse the advantage on the complaint train.

---

I already addressed concerns about real life vs. video game violence and murder and the likelihood of them happening versus the subtleness of real-life objectification that is a daily occurrence for women. You must have not read my entire post because you were too busy brushing off my concerns as invalid. No one here has said those things are okay, so why are you putting those words in my mouth? That isn't acceptable, and it's no way to have a debate about something.

And what in god's name are you talking about "either they're both allowed or neither." Allowed how? Who is allowing what? Frankly, it sounds like you're grasping at straws because you aren't being agreed with, because you are making no sense.

Why exactly do you think the world is going to end if we don't show panties of underage girls in video games, and why do you feel the need to defend such nastiness so vehemently? It doesn't sound like it's a censorship issue to me. It sounds like you just want to look at underage girls' panties with a legitimate outlet for it. Which brings us right back around to the objectification issue.

No, it just bugs the hell out of me when people crawl on top of their moral high horse, all outraged about the fact that a player might accidentally get a panty shot in a game, decrying how the end of society is near and how such vileness should never be accepted, but then conveniently looking the other way whistling as a whole slew of games glorifying other heinous crimes runs by behind your turned backs. It rings dishonest. Maybe that seems simple to you, but it is my impression that a lot of things would be simple if only people would stop complicating them when it's not needed. If that doesn't make sense to you, well, that's your problem, not mine.

The best way that I can explain it all, is that violence in video games is cool because there's usually a contextual reason as to why it is there. Playing a video game story that requires you to kill aliens to save the world would be pretty boring with the violence.

Putting tiny little panties on teenage characters serves no purpose for the story, it serves no purpose for the character - and ultimately, it's just boring and overdone. So bored of skimpy little female characters, like, can't they come up with something else? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

No, it just bugs the hell out of me when people crawl on top of their moral high horse, all outraged about the fact that a player might accidentally get a panty shot in a game, decrying how the end of society is near and how such vileness should never be accepted, but then conveniently looking the other way whistling as a whole slew of games glorifying other heinous crimes runs by behind your turned backs. It rings dishonest. Maybe that seems simple to you, but it is my impression that a lot of things would be simple if only people would stop complicating them when it's not needed. If that doesn't make sense to you, well, that's your problem, not mine.

---

I didn't make the connection between objectification and violence, you did. So I feel like you are the one complicating things here. Who here has glorified violence? I would also be disturbed if someone was doing that in such a consistent manner.

It's not complicated. It's simple. I've already explained it several times. I'm not interested in debating the validity of video game violence because it is not an issue that is important to me. You don't get to tell me that I have to feel the exact same way about two issues that you've laid out. You don't get to tell me that because sexual objectification is important to me that violence and gore also has to be important to me. That isn't how this works. I have consistently expressed disproval with one aspect about this game in question - and really, for a lot of video games in general - and that is all I'm interested in talking about. You bringing in hypocrisy with violence or whatever is detracting from the issue, and you are trying to invalidate what I am saying because I don't care as much about Column B as I do about Column A. While they are similar topics, they are still different.

I care about one more than I care about the other. That doesn't translate to hypocrisy. It translates to me being more passionate about something I deal with more consistently in real life, like objectification, than I deal with much less, physical violence. I don't think that's unreasonable.

You are equating the two because you don't have to deal with either. They are different.

If you think that violence in games is equivalent to objectification of women in terms of what it normalizes in society then you are wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% wrong.

See society makes it clear, pretty much from birth, that violence is wrong. We are told this constantly in school, by parents, other adults, and by the fact that there are pretty well established laws that everyone knows about which say if you assault or murder people, you're scum and going to prison. Possibly for life. There are serious consequences to committing acts of violence. And people know that while violence can be a part of fiction, it is not accepted in the real world barring very specific circumstances.

There is nothing even remotely comparable to this treatment of objectification in society. No one tells kids that objectification is bad and harmful. There are no laws against it. And the majority of media outright says it's okay.

So drop the false equivalency. It's complete bull and has no place in this discussion. And since it seems to be the only argument you have, you'd better find another if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

decrying how the end of society is near and how such vileness should never be accepted

---

Literally no one says this except the people trying to argue that objectification is fine.

I must have totally blacked out on the day my parents taught me it was okay to objectify women and harass them but that I would go to hell if I murdered someone. Oh wait, I didn't because that never happened because my parents did teach me that it was decidedly not okay and I imagine it being the same for a whole lot of other people. Usually the lesson "don't be a dick to others" gets taught before the "don't murder someone" lesson, but then again my childhood was a while ago so maybe my memory is going.

You may believe every couple out there raising their kids is morally bankrupt but even I with all my pessimism about the world am not prepared to go that far off into the deep end just yet.

What makes you think most people even think of objectification as being something bad? Because they don't.

And cut the needless hyperbole. Clearly I don't believe every parent out there is morally bankrupt. People can fail to recognize something is wrong or a severe societal problem without being monsters.

Now do you have an actual argument to make or would you prefer to continue being deliberately obtuse and attack strawmen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elpizo

I must have totally blacked out on the day my parents taught me it was okay to objectify women and harass them but that I would go to hell if I murdered someone. Oh wait, I didn't because that never happened because my parents did teach me that it was decidedly not okay and I imagine it being the same for a whole lot of other people. Usually the lesson "don't be a dick to others" gets taught before the "don't murder someone" lesson, but then again my childhood was a while ago so maybe my memory is going.

You may believe every couple out there raising their kids is morally bankrupt but even I with all my pessimism about the world am not prepared to go that far off into the deep end just yet.

---

So what you're saying is that your parents taught you to not objectify women? Yet here you are page after page in a video game forum arguing for outlets to be able to do so and invalidating others when they have said that aspects of video games like showing underage girls' panties translates to objectification. None of that makes sense to me, including your mention of "don't be a dick to others". Where does that come to play in this discussion?

And I don't see how your second paragraph has anything to do with any of the discussion. No one has indicated that "every couple out there is morally bankrupt." Instead, Vivi very clearly laid out the societal terms that we all find pretty agreeable and are taught from a young age. Are you even reading any of the responses in this thread, or are you just typing things are you think of them hoping they will make for a good defense because you don't like being pointed out as someone willing to objectify women?

There is literally no point in arguing with you. If you at least made a cursory attempt to address the arguments made that would be one thing, but any further attempt to engage you on this subject is a waste of everyone elses time since you apparently can't debate in good faith and make even the most cursory attempt to even understand peoples arguments. If you don't believe that media can reflect the attitudes of society and influence it then there's really nothing else to say since you're denying simple truths of the world in much the same way as a child who plugs their ears and screams until people stop talking to them. I'm guessing you'd consider it a victory in much the same way they would as well.

Quote:

---

I'm off to murder ghouls and rape women, because I saw video game panties and drank the blood of virgins.

---

This sentence alone sums up exactly why every post you're making in this debate is an utter waste of peoples time.

I was going to write a post laying it out exactly what I think of you and your ilk, but then I realised I really just don't care anymore. People like you just make me sad and tired, because people who think like you do are the reason the world is what it is. Given the state of the world, I'm sure you can figure out that that's not exactly a compliment.

You say it's a waste of people's time, but nobody's time was more wasted than mine, trying to make people be reasonable, only to be met with the same wall of blind ignorance every single time. I hope you're happy.

I understand things get heated in these kinds of debates, but I will kindly ask that everyone please refrain from posting personal attacks toward other members. There have been a few posts now that have towed the line. Be cool, kats.

I'm deeply concerned about the chilling effect on teen panty shots this could have.

Well, considering the world is a better place to live than it had ever been, I say we can be pretty proud of ourselves :monster:

I don't really care about this that much but I find it funny that people are acting like Japan is some paradise for sexual freedom when harassment is a HUGE issue there. Second hand account, but my best friend, who is a woman, lives in Japan and they have train carts for women only to prevent that kind of harassment. More recently she had to report the same man twice in one week for boarding women-only cart and being a creeper.

If people want to pretend there's no relationship between the media we consume and the reality we live in, they can. However, they are wrong. Our realities are often engendered in various media. Look at the issue of diversity in casting or white washing of characters and think of all the racial tension in the USA. Think of how women's body can be sexualized to sell cars, yet people will foam at the mouth if a mother breastfeeds in public! THe connections are not always obvious or direct but that does not mean there is no relationship between the two.

Edit: Should note that my friend teaches HS and was concerned for the safety of her students as well. The very fact that she had to worry indicates that there are women-only carts and that she had to worry about a creeper points to large societal issues.

I'm glad they did it because for the longest time now, it's been proven that no game developer in japan has any idea what actually makes a character attractive to an adult person.

I'll give them a hint though. It's not panty shots on young girls, or a dress that is 50% not there.

It's not as much censorship as it is protecting the developers from humiliating themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

Well, considering the world is a better place to live than it had ever been, If say we can be pretty proud of ourselves :monster:

---

And then people accuse me of how it's nice that I live in a world where I'm not objectified. Hah. You have nothing to be proud of. Nothing. That you would even consider saying that with a straight face is something that I find in extremely poor taste.

Of course objectification is a thing. But now we have human rights, women can vote and work and are consistently able to keep fighting for their rights, infant mortality rates have plummeted thanks to the incredible advances of medicine, and you can instantly talk with people around the world with a press of a button.

I don't think seeing a discourse that's contesting your personal opinions being dominant on a Final Fantasy fansite (or even something bigger like Twitter or Reddit or Tumblr or whatever you kids are using these days) really warrants saying the world is trout and skeletons are to blame for that.

Yes, objectification is terrible, but we're at least capable of working against it and look, game companies are listening. Just because we're living in objectively the best time period in history doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make the world even better by fixing stuff that's broken :monster:

Hello.

Last chance.

This nonsense stops now or this thread is nuked.

Move on, talk about it privately, go discuss other things you are into.

This ends now.

I also want to emphasise that it's okay to discuss a topic, but at no point should the word "you" be thrown around so much as it has in this thread. This goes for multiple people. Always discuss the topic, not the person you are discussing it with. Any problem/issue you have with another member is not relevant to the topic and can be discussed in private with staff or the individual.