Weeb revolt over trap censorship

[Dreiko]

Now there's people on twitter posting pics of themselves to show that Uzaki's proportion are realistic.

I approve.

 

[fOx]

Seems like there are a lot of people that seem to just assume all anime is pedo bait or something.

Hey man, I'm much happier seeing you guys celebrate a well endowed college girl then the literal 12 year olds you usually obsess over.

 

[Worgen]

Hey man, I'm much happier seeing you guys celebrate a well endowed college girl then the literal 12 year olds you usually obsess over.

At least I know why its wrong to go after a 12 year old beyond just saying "its bad."

 

[Houseman]

if the word isn't actually hate speech, how is it that bigots can communicate hate with it by simply saying it without adding any other context?

Racists already use the word "black" to communicate hate, because racists know that "black = bad". All they have to do is say "he's a black guy" to another person in their circle, and then the underlying meaning is understood, and therefore, communicated. "They hired this black guy at work today". "So this black guy comes into my store", "Look, there's another commercial starring a black person ".

So, what, is the word "black" bad now? Because people are using it to communicate hate simply by saying it without adding any other context. So therefore, by your definition, the word "black" must be hate speech, and we should all stop using it, and we should go after anyone who uses the word in any context. That's your logic, not mine.

Again your premise is laughable at best and fundamentally disingenuous of how language works, if people want to continue using it that's fine, but it doesn't change what the word means now.

Think carefully about what you just said. "What the word means now".

So now look who's pretending to "have authority over the meaning of words"! You're now claiming the authority to know "what the word means now", aren't you? But didn't you say that I couldn't do that? So it's okay when you do it, but not when I do it, is that how it works?

You've contradicted yourself and mortally wounded your own argument. Either:

A) I'm wrong about "what the word means now", and it actually IS possible "to have authority over the meaning of words" since people can apparently be wrong or right about what words mean, or

B) language is subjective and neither of us have any authority to say "what the word means now", and therefore, you have no reason to say that it's hate speech.

So which is it?

 

[Kae]

Hey man, I'm much happier seeing you guys celebrate a well endowed college girl then the literal 12 year olds you usually obsess over.

At least I know why its wrong to go after a 12 year old beyond just saying "its bad."

Kids! Stop!

If you keep this up you'll be grounded without dinner and I'll unplug the Internet and confiscate your cell phone!

 

[Kae]

Racists already use the word "black" to communicate hate, because racists know that "black = bad". All they have to do is say "he's a black guy" to another person in their circle, and then the underlying meaning is understood, and therefore, communicated. "They hired this black guy at work today". "So this black guy comes into my store", "Look, there's another commercial starring a black person ".

So, what, is the word "black" bad now? Because people are using it to communicate hate simply by saying it without adding any other context. So therefore, by your definition, the word "black" must be hate speech, and we should all stop using it, and we should go after anyone who uses the word in any context. That's your logic, not mine.

Key difference, the word black is actually useful and has meaning that's hard to reassign to a different word due to extremely wide use, you're being awfully offended by not being able to say a pointless meme that can easily be communicated through other words.

Think carefully about what you just said. "What the word means now".

So now look who's pretending to "have authority over the meaning of words"! You're now claiming the authority to know "what the word means now", aren't you? But didn't you say that I couldn't do that? So it's okay when you do it, but not when I do it, is that how it works?

Sure, the difference is I recognise that could change, in the future, there's no point in fighting language, it's like the ocean it flows, the fact that you're so obsessed with protecting the term kind off implies it might have more significance that being a simple meme, doesn't it?

You've contradicted yourself and mortally wounded your own argument. Either:

Bound to happen I'm both an idiot and too lazy to review my posts for inconsistencies, so it's fine, I make mistakes all the time I've already admitted to a few during this thread, so it's kind weird this is the one that has you going "Gotcha! I've won!", when most of my arguments have been pretty mediocre.

A) I'm wrong about "what the word means now", and it actually IS possible "to have authority over the meaning of words" since people can apparently be wrong or right about what words mean, or

B) language is subjective and neither of us can know "what the word means now", and therefore, you have no reason to say that it's hate speech.

So which is it?

C) We're probably both wrong, neither of us are linguists after all, and as much as I'm talking about what I "know" it's from a class I took little over a decade ago, so I basically don't know shit.
Look I never claimed to have any credentials and am basically just some random idiot on the Internet.

But let's entertain Scenario for a moment A) If scenario A was true we would be completely unable to have this discussion as the word trap could have never acquired the definition that we're arguing over, since that doesn't fit within the dictionary definition of the word trap, therefore scenario a can't be true.

Or B) Basically impossible as if it were the case we wouldn't be able to communicate anything at all and this whole discussion would be impossible.

Huh... what a conundrum, under both scenarios this argument is impossible to have, sheesh I wish I had Houseman's sexy brain so I could figure this out.

 

[Houseman]

Key difference, the word black is actually useful and has meaning that's hard to reassign to a different word due to extremely wide use

So where are these rules written down that explain why "black" can't be made into a hate speech, but "trap" can? Where does it say that a word must be
- useful
- have meaning that's hard to reassign
- due to extremely wide use
before it becomes immune to being turned hateful?

Because apparently " bigots [using it to ] communicate hate with it by simply saying it without adding any other context" wasn't the full set of rules.

Or are you just making up rules on the fly?

Sure, the difference is I recognise that could change, in the future

I recognize this too. The difference is that I don't believe that it has, yet. I believe that the people who claim otherwise are simply mistaken or lying.

If scenario A was true we would be completely unable to have this discussion as the word trap could have never acquired the definition that we're arguing ove

I've never denied that language can change. Like I said earlier regarding Jason Schreier's use of the word 'lolicon': "And yes, maybe if this group gets big enough, they'll eventually be considered "correct", and a new minority would be the ones considered to be "wrong". At that point, language will have "evolved""

I've only ever denied that this particular word has changed, because I don't think that your evidence (some racist twitter nobodies and a youtuber who forwards what they say) is convincing.

So no, "under both scenarios this argument" isn't "impossible to have". This argument can be had very simply: You either show convincing evidence that the meaning of the word has changed, or I remain unconvinced. Simple.

And if you'd like, we can even expand into the broader "how far should we go in order to avoid offending people" debate that is what this is really about. You spoke about the "significance [of] a simple meme", right? Well you're right, it's not about the meme, per se. It's about the broader cultural war wherein people with ulterior motives invade spaces and say "waah, this offends me, change it!", and whether or not people should do so. If I find blood and gore objectionable in video games, should it be banned for everyone else? If I find sexy women in movies and comics objectionable, should they all get rid of that to please me? If I don't like how your avatar condones drug usage, should you be forced to change it? This is just another front in that same war that's been raging since before either of us were born. That's what this is really about.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Nobody calls someone's "gender" into question if they are a trap. By virtue of being a trap, their gender is known. That gender is "male".

..so if they're not male, then calling them a trap would be calling their gender into question, wouldn't it?

At worst, they're "tricking" straight men into finding them attractive. At best, they're living their own lives and the joke is on the straight man for falling for a cute guy.

Why is that a joke

Spend half a second thinking about this. Literally half a second.

 

[McElroy]

Hey man, I'm much happier seeing you guys celebrate a well endowed college girl then the literal 12 year olds you usually obsess over.

Doesn't matter much. Fictional characters' ages are fictional. Anime exists in its own fantasy realm, and the regular visitors can keep fantasy and reality apart just fine (usually).

I dunno if passive aggressive dismissal (about 'traps' or Uzaki or simply anime in general) is the way to go but it is one way. Nowadays it seems like every once in awhile a new target for criticism gets just enough exposure that the defensive fans go to overdrive, and the resulting ordeal doesn't change anything to any direction.

Why is that a joke

Having to question one's sexuality is a joke as old as time.

 

[Dreiko]

..so if they're not male, then calling them a trap would be calling their gender into question, wouldn't it?



Why is that a joke

Spend half a second thinking about this. Literally half a second.

If they're not male they're not a trap, they're just a normal girl who looks like a girl and acts like a girl. A girl could be a reverse trap, someone who is very masculine, think Naoto from p4. But no, if you just call a feminine girl a trap you're just using the wrong word to describe her.



The joke is found in the absurdity of someone who sees himself as a stallion and a pillar of heterosexual glory reallizing he was actually lusting over another dude.


The butt of the joke is the protagonist's over-masculine behavior.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That would be funnier if my long haired friend wasn't occasionally attacked by people with "over-masculine behavior" when they realized he was a dude.
Like, it's funny because homophobia.

 

[Terminal Blue]

If they're not male they're not a trap, they're just a normal girl who looks like a girl and acts like a girl.

We really have to spell it out for the cishets, don't we..

What if a normal girl who looks like a girl and acts like a girl was assigned male at birth, or has a penis.

The joke is found in the absurdity of someone who sees himself as a stallion and a pillar of heterosexual glory reallizing he was actually lusting over another dude.

Why is that absurd?

I mean leaving aside the fact that it's completely normal for heterosexual men to be attracted to people who look like or remind them of women, and that this in no way changes the fact that they are heterosexual, it kind of sounds like you're suggesting that not being a "pillar of sexual glory" is somehow a bad thing. It kind of sounds like heterosexuality is a privileged social position, and that the thought of someone losing that social position can be a means of humiliating or mocking them.

There's a term for this. It's called "gay panic". It's used as a legal defence when straight men murder LGBT people, and then claim they weren't responsible because they were overcome by fear at the thought that their heterosexuality might be brought into question.

 

[McElroy]

We really have to spell it out for the cishets, don't we..
What if a normal girl who looks like a girl and acts like a girl was assigned male at birth, or has a penis.

I mean leaving aside the fact that it's completely normal for heterosexual men to be attracted to people who look like or remind them of women, and that this in no way changes the fact that they are heterosexual, it kind of sounds like you're suggesting that not being a "pillar of sexual glory" is somehow a bad thing. It kind of sounds like heterosexuality is a privileged social position, and that the thought of someone losing that social position can be a means of humiliating or mocking them.

There's a term for this. It's called "gay panic". It's used as a legal defence when straight men murder LGBT people, and then claim they weren't responsible because they were overcome by fear at the thought that their heterosexuality might be brought into question.

That's the real world you're talking about. What if I told you that anime hasn't contributed to that stuff at all? You absolutely don't need a second of weird Japanese cartoons to be transphobic. Though in general I would agree that there is some line somewhere beyond which sexual humour starts to encourage perverts.

 

[Dreiko]

We really have to spell it out for the cishets, don't we..

What if a normal girl who looks like a girl and acts like a girl was assigned male at birth, or has a penis.

Then it's a trap.

Why is that absurd?

I mean leaving aside the fact that it's completely normal for heterosexual men to be attracted to people who look like or remind them of women, and that this in no way changes the fact that they are heterosexual, it kind of sounds like you're suggesting that not being a "pillar of sexual glory" is somehow a bad thing. It kind of sounds like heterosexuality is a privileged social position, and that the thought of someone losing that social position can be a means of humiliating or mocking them.

There's a term for this. It's called "gay panic". It's used as a legal defence when straight men murder LGBT people, and then claim they weren't responsible because they were overcome by fear at the thought that their heterosexuality might be brought into question.

No it's not that they remind them or look like women, heterosexual men are only attracted to people who actually are women. If you think that people will keep being attracted to someone to they don't know but think is a woman once they learn they're a dude you live in a different universe. Only people who are bi or are specifically into this in the form of a fetish wouldn't be disturbed by such a thing.


Being a pillar of heterosexual glory is definitely a status symbol. Part because in primeval times the successful males were the ones that did that, so it's hardcoded into our DNA. Also, all through antiquity it was the most top of men who got to do that, rulers and rich folks who could build harems and what have you. Hence it has an inherited status and is one of the metrics men compare with eachother, much like with things like fancy dress or jewelry it's not really tied to the original reason why these things were seen as status symbols, but it still is one nonetheless.

I think you fail to understand how people think if you think it has to do with the relation of heterosexuals or homosexuals, only you think of that stuff, most people don't even bother contemplating how it relates to the power of other groups. They just compare among other heterosexual people since that's the default in their mind. You are tilting at windmills if you think men are consciously trying to put down other sexualities when they boas about their conquests. No, it's more about their ego. The only competition they try to put down is the other men who are also vying for the same women.


That is the kind of mentality that this plays a joke at the back off.

And I think "gay panic" is some BS concept a sleazy lawyer came up with to defend a crazy client like that "afluenza" defense, where some drunk kid who killed 4 people driving drunk claimed that he was too rich to know right and wrong. Sorry but I'm not gonna buy that nonsense lol.

 

[McElroy]

No it's not that they remind them or look like women, heterosexual men are only attracted to people who actually are women. If you think that people will keep being attracted to someone to they don't know but think is a woman once they learn they're a dude you live in a different universe. Only people who are bi or are specifically into this in the form of a fetish wouldn't be disturbed by such a thing.

So is it supposed to be a funny joke of no consequence beyond mild embarrassment or something that disturbs the guy? If it depends on the person then we're entering a hazy area where you can never now how someone reacts (positively, negatively, calm, aggressive and so on). In fiction of course the creator decides this so it's not that important, but when thinking about parallels with the real world this is something that you have to keep in mind.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Then it's a trap.

So, trans women are just men looking to trap heterosexual men. Hence why a lot of trans folks don't like the term trap.

That is the kind of mentality that this plays a joke at the back off.

Yes, it's downright hilarious when a dude in anime hilariously over-reacts with absolute disgust at the mere thought that they might've been momentarily attracted to somebody with a penis. That's definitely a well targeted joke with no collateral damage.

 

[Schadrach]

Even stupider, then.

No stupider than the usual turning of the euphemism treadmill. At least it probably won't go to "people of trapness" in the future.

And yeah any time 4chan gets involved things get...sticky.

Maybe avoid /b/ and the porn boards in the future to avoid that problem.

Seems like there are a lot of people that seem to just assume all anime is pedo bait or something.

I strongly suspect based on who that "lot of people" seem to be that it's because social justice-type arguments don't catch much traction with anime/manga (see this for example, or the times people have gotten upset with "localization" making changes that are pretty overtly about altering things to meet those sensibilities), which means anime needs to be denigrated as low status as much as possible.

Talking about someone in particular there Worgen? Hhm?

View attachment 538

I see your Konata and raise you Kokonoe Rin.

 

[Worgen]

I strongly suspect based on who that "lot of people" seem to be that it's because social justice-type arguments don't catch much traction with anime/manga (see this for example, or the times people have gotten upset with "localization" making changes that are pretty overtly about altering things to meet those sensibilities), which means anime needs to be denigrated as low status as much as possible.

I think its more just ignorant people that have mainly just heard about anime and are parroting things.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Being a pillar of heterosexual glory is definitely a status symbol. Part because in primeval times the successful males were the ones that did that, so it's hardcoded into our DNA. Also, all through antiquity it was the most top of men who got to do that, rulers and rich folks who could build harems and what have you. Hence it has an inherited status and is one of the metrics men compare with eachother, much like with things like fancy dress or jewelry it's not really tied to the original reason why these things were seen as status symbols, but it still is one nonetheless.

You could have just said "in our current society" and left it at that. Saying "hardcoded into out DNA" or assuming sexuality in antiquity was viewed the same way it's viewed today is something you normally want to avoid.

 

[Silvanus]

Being a pillar of heterosexual glory is definitely a status symbol. Part because in primeval times the successful males were the ones that did that, so it's hardcoded into our DNA. Also, all through antiquity it was the most top of men who got to do that, rulers and rich folks who could build harems and what have you.

The most top of men? Not sure about that... all the tops that I know aren't pillars of heterosexual glory.