Thoughts on the My Hero Academia Controversy?

[MadeOfMagicAndWires]

@shipmeadow

So you want Japs to stop sweeping things under the rug by following Germany's example of never mentioning anything about Nazis ever? Germans can't even look at a swastika without Merkel's gestapo kicking down their door.

I don't know which Germany you've been visiting, but they're keenly aware of WWII and will be one of the first to remind you of its horrors.

You will indeed find out that they're (rightly) not very tolerant of right-wing extremism but this is exactly because they're so keenly aware of what that brings; and not, as you mistakenly seem to interpret it as, because they're trying to cover up that past and hoping everyone will just forget what happened.

Censorship is used in modern context to mean impeding the free exchange of ideas.

Criticising someone's idea or actions is not censoring or disrupting them, it's criticizing them. Freedom of speech does not make you exempt from criticism, and if your idea cannot hold up to criticism it's probably not worth much. You can hold as many terrible opinions
as you want, but you don't get to cry "freedom of speech!" and run away when someone calls you out on your bullshit.
Also, all criticism of ideas or actions hopes to change them, that's what criticism is for.

Now there are two possible reasons as to why the name was changed:
[ol]
[li]They figured that yeah, on second thought, casual out-of-context references to war crimes is a pretty bad look[/li]
[li]They think it's nonsense, but changed it anyway to keep their customers happy[/li]
[/ol]

Now in case of 1) that's criticism doing it's job: someone does or says something => issue is pointed out => idea or actions get adjusted. No censorship there, just someone changing someone's mind. In case of 2) that's appealing to the largest common denominator, i.e. capitalism; still not censorship.

Either way, they clearly did not feel very strongly about it; if they did then they would have bothered to defend their idea or, failing that, stuck to their own opinion anyway. No-one forced them to change their work against their will; it was simply criticized and they, for whatever reason, chose to change it themselves. No liberties were encroached upon, and in fact this is just the market of ideas in action. It's a market in action anyway.

It certainly doesn't give one any confidence there was some important point they wanted to make by choosing that name, or that anything of value was lost by changing it.

 

[shipmeadow]

@MadeOfMagicAndWires
First, capital can be and IS used to censor people every day. The fact that you can threaten people's livelihood to censor them is a known fact.
Second, your understanding of criticism rejects the view that other people are ends in and of themselves. Criticism is not a tool to bludgeon speech you don't agree with Borg style (assimilate or destroy). Criticism is an invitation for discussion and arguments. I don't want to change you with my criticism, nor do I believe I could. I would hope you come to your own conclusions after introspection. You and everyone else are sovereign beings with agency. To engage in criticism with the express intent of controlling thought is an ultimate hubris only the tyrannically inclined would partake in.

I'm of the opinion that calling something offensive is not a very insightful criticism no matter how offensive the subject may be. In fact, I'll go a step further, criticizing something for eliciting offense inherently implies that you would prefer that the offending subject be gone. To then acknowledge this criticism as true (should be followed through) is also inherently a censorship position.

 

[MadeOfMagicAndWires]

@ shipmeadow

First, capital can be and IS used to censor people every day. The fact that you can threaten people's livelihood to censor them is a known fact.

This is not the case here, the author or anyone else wasn't in danger of being fired; and, as far as I know no one was calling for that either.

The worst I've seen from fans is "I am going to stop reading this" which would have impacted the author's livelihood only in the most indirect of ways.
Even if everyone would have done that en masse that's still not censorship, that's putting your money where your mouth is, which again, is just the market working as intended: money goes where the demand is. If you think that's wrong that's a fault with capitalism, and not a violation of free speech.

Free speech does not ensure your work is any good, nor does it entitle your work to sell well or to be published. And if that sort of thing bothers you then you can just buy a copy of the latest volume to voice your opinion instead.

Fact is, as far as we know, nobody has forced the author's hand here; they changed it out of their own will. Now, whether that is because they genuinely changed their minds, or whether it was a business decision in order to keep everyone happy in an attempt to rake in the biggest profits it isn't a form of censorship. They were perfectly able to either defend their work against, or straight up ignore, any criticism if they wanted to.

I would hope you come to your own conclusions after introspection. You and everyone else are sovereign beings with agency. To engage in criticism with the express intent of controlling thought is an ultimate hubris only the tyrannically inclined would partake in.

This is exactly what I'm talking about? Hoping someone comes to the same conclusions after giving your criticism some thought is hoping to effect change on someone's opinions or actions? Who would criticize something, hoping to accomplish nothing?

I also don't know where you get the idea of wanting to control someone's thoughts, or why you think simple criticism is somehow capable of this of people changing their mind about something against their will, but I've never said anything of the like.

All I've said is that, if you thoughtlessly or intentionally write something that is offensive you shouldn't be surprised if people call you out on that. What people do with that is their business and entirely out of control of whoever criticized them. This really shouldn't be such a controversial or novel concept.

I'm of the opinion that calling something offensive is not a very insightful criticism no matter how offensive the subject may be.

The fact that an idea cannot hold up to even the most superficial of criticism really does not speak to the strength of that idea. Something being offensive adds no value of its own and if there is a good reason to keep this specific name in this specific context despite that, I have yet to hear it.

I'll go a step further, criticizing something for eliciting offense inherently implies that you would prefer that the offending subject be gone.

Yeah. Any criticism would want those flaws it's pointing out to be addressed in some way; this is the function of criticism.

To then acknowledge this criticism as true (should be followed through) is also inherently a censorship position.

No?
If someone criticized my idea and I go "yeah, you're right, I'll change it/be more careful next time" how is that censorship?

Furthermore, if criticism is valid I'd have a valid reason to change it, but nothing forces me to do so.
I could just as easily have good reasons to keep it as-is, despite its flaws and say "yeah, you're right, but I'm not going to change this because x and y". I could just as easily say "No you're wrong" or simply "Yeah, but I'm not going to change it".

Again, it really doesn't matter why they decided to change the name because either way, they clearly found some good reason to do so. If they didn't have that reason, or had any reason to keep it despite that, they would have either defended their work against said criticism or ignored it.

 

[Coriander]

Glad to see the community is not all pro-censorship after what happened to Rapeman.

That said, censorship apologists generally have the same excuses. That censorship can only be called so when it's enacted by the government, and then in the context with Horikoshi now is that he's "changing it on his own so it's not censorship!" Both are false, in the first one, censorship is not exclusive to government. It's true that government is the one that does it the most, but to say pressure to silence or force people to change their opinion from non-government is not censorship is utter bollocks. Also when you gather mobs enough to threaten someone over their livelihood that they panic and change their own creation, like Horikoshi here, also encompasses censorship, albeit it's self-censorship resulted from these triggered people.

Those guys should learn a bit from south east asian people, they got the same shit from WW2 and they actually moved on. It's a goddamn history and japan got nuked twice.

I'm actually disappointed that Horikoshi actually bent the knee. Look where it got him, more complaints because the new name still triggers people somehow.

 

[MadeOfMagicAndWires]

@Coriander

But to say pressure to silence or force people to change their opinion from non-government is not censorship is utter bollocks [...]
Also when you gather mobs enough to threaten someone over their livelihood that they panic and change their own creation, like Horikoshi here, also encompasses censorship, albeit it's self-censorship resulted from these triggered people.

It's not censorship because the worst a group of people can do is not buy your work, or choose not to publish it on your platform. No author is entitled to a livelihood, something that many great authors who don't casually reference war crimes in their works know very well.

Horikoshi was never going to be fired over this. The fact that they chose to change their work over this either shows that they agree with the criticism, that this particular change was not integral to the vision of their work, or that the integrity of their work does not matter as much to them as raking in as much profit as possible.

I'm sorry, but criticism and boycotting really aren't censorship, and are in fact tools of the marketplace of the ideas. Whether hero academia should have been de-platformed because of this specific event is very much up for debate, and wouldn't have happened outside of China, but aside from that people are crying wolf where there isn't one.

 

[Nick_Asano]

Who gives a ♥♥♥♥ what author names what character? It's fiction! I'll laugh at whoever names their main bad guy Hitler but I won't be angry or depressed.

 

[merukit]

We should all be radical jihadists for free speech.

@shipmeadow

First, capital can be and IS used to censor people every day. The fact that you can threaten people's livelihood to censor them is a known fact.

So, it is impossible to not have censorship? Government that is too strong can censor information, but weaker government allows pressures of money to do censorship. With no government at all it is still possible to threaten people, which would still be "censoring" them by that reasoning. Is there any conceivable way that censorship can really be defeated, if these are true?

 

[Coriander]

In case you didn't notice, I don't have any intention on having discussion. I only posted informing people about the censorship apologist who continue to spout false information and thinking their definition of censorship is the right one. Because I know by experience trying to change their minds is futile.

The thing about self-censorship is real and the result of the mobs threatening Horikoshi. Whatever you believe "your" term of censorship doesn't matter because you can't change the actual meaning of the word or the context it's used on. Trying to deflect by misinterpreting what was actually said is not a good way to make your point. Horikoshi did self-censorship, what caused it was people who still gets triggered on war crimes over half a decade ago that the current japanese and chinese/korean doesn't experience. If you get triggered by someone else's work, it's YOUR problem. You can just not buy, quit supporting, block, move on, etc. But no, apparently is the creator's fault that they made their creation not fit for your consumption or EVERY populace in the world.

By the way, My Hero Academia is already banned in China. So much for caving in, huh?

 

[KatoShuu]

I just remembered.
Hyuga Neji (from Naruto), his mark got Swastika "卐" mark got changed into an "X",because it looks similar with the Nazi symbol.
I read on a reddit post once, A teacher banned Naruto manga because teacher thought it teaches Nazi (only based on Neji's forehead), then the student researched about Neji's mark. Turns out is a religious symbol in Hinduism. The teacher admitted his/her fault and apologized

 

[MadeOfMagicAndWires]

In case you didn't notice, I don't have any intention on having discussion.

I mean, you're posting on a discussion forum, so no, I didn't notice. But you know what you ARE perfectly entitled to run away from the slightest criticism of your opinion. Wonder why WSJ didn't think of that one.

The thing about self-censorship is real and the result of the mobs threatening Horikoshi. [...]
Trying to deflect by misinterpreting what was actually said is not a good way to make your point.

Or, you know, you take the author at their word, they actually agreed with the criticism, and changed it because they did not mean to offend. Not everyone would use their right of speech as a letter of marque to offend people, even if they are allowed to.

But yeah, I'm the one misinterpreting their words for some reason.

You can just not buy, quit supporting, block, move on, etc. But no, apparently is the creator's fault that they made their creation not fit for your consumption or EVERY populace in the world.

That's exactly what they did; they're saying they would boycott the series. But this somehow also censorship through mobs "threatening" Hiraoki to not read their work any more? What exactly are you arguing fans should have done differently; should they have stopped reading the series without voicing their opinion as to why?

By the way, My Hero Academia is already banned in China. So much for caving in, huh?

Except almost nobody here, yourself included, is talking about China, a prime, somehow it's all the "triggered koreans'" fault.

China's practice using its state capitalism as bludgeon to enforce foreign companies and countries to suit themselves to them is so well known it has its own name, but can only affect them as much as you let them, they cannot force them like they do with its own companies.

American or Japanese companies do not have to fear for their well-being or livelihood for saying something that is not in line with China. They could easily choose to take any financial hit by choosing to stick to their guns and no longer sucking on China's teat.
The fact that for-profit companies will time and time again sell out whatever ideals they would have had to get access to the Chinese market is not, in fact censorship, it's just proof these companies are morally bankrupt.