thread of general confusion whether something is good or bad

[valiums]

Change the rating, which might mean changing the showtime, which means re-jiggering the broadcast schedule, or maybe changing stations entirely, which means renegotiating contracts, cause whoops we don't show Ratings X Y or Z here, et cetera?

Or does TV not work at all like I think it does? I thought there was a reason Adult Swim was always at night, but who knows! Adult swim was always the last ten minutes of the hour, at my local pool.

[Bamyasi]

Yes, all of those things. Or just don't air the episode; but we're talking ideal worlds here (see also: my point about capitalism having too much control over the arts).

Unless's question was a red herring anyway because none of the content we're talking about violated the ratings given.

[rtil]

Change the rating, which might mean changing the showtime, which means re-jiggering the broadcast schedule, or maybe changing stations entirely, which means renegotiating contracts, cause whoops we don't show Ratings X Y or Z here, et cetera?

Or does TV not work at all like I think it does? I thought there was a reason Adult Swim was always at night, but who knows! Adult swim was always the last ten minutes of the hour, at my local pool.

you're right but you're thinking about tv in the US. this happened in the UK. i have no idea how tv works over there so idk. frankly i'm surprised because i always thought that the UK had much looser restrictions on what was broadcast but maybe that was only for government-funded tv.

[Bamyasi]

Yeah. So it only really affects Unless and (Irish, actually) soup (suckers).

[rtil]

everyone i know watches SU on animeflavor anyway

[Unless]

this happened in the UK.

Yeah. So it only really affects Unless and soup (suckers).

Well I'm not actually in the U.K. and I neither do I subscribe to their television.

everyone i know watches SU on animeflavor anyway

Also this. I generally prefer watching as much as I want at once anyway, rather than conforming to Cartoon Network's really bizarre schedule.

>this dance between gays is the same as these underage girls in tiny bikinis

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

They're similar in that they're both deemed inappropriate and have had outcries about them for censorship, which is the discussion we're having ATM.

Who let the stupid in.

...

Unless's question was a red herring anyway because none of the content we're talking about violated the ratings given.

[spoiler]
  red herring
  noun

  1.
  a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.

  2.
  a clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

  3.
  a two-part noun which I'm grateful for your mentioning
  because I collect those in a list which I'm sure would be any bad My Little Pony fanfiction writer's wet dream.
[/spoiler]

Though very occasionally prone to posting a myreactionlolol.gif file, I have zero interest in the 'shitposting' and 'trolling' malarkey, so typically when I ask a question of this nature then it's not rhetorical and there's a point behind it. In that regard, this all might move a bit quicker if you were to take my word as gospel, rather than getting hung up on or offended by the point behind my posts not being immediately apparent to you.

Change the rating, which might mean changing the showtime, which means re-jiggering the broadcast schedule, or maybe changing stations entirely, which means renegotiating contracts, cause whoops we don't show Ratings X Y or Z here, et cetera?

Yes, all of those things. Or just don't air the episode; but we're talking ideal worlds here (see also: my point about capitalism having too much control over the arts).

Honestly that sounds far too convoluted and awkward to be ideal for the average viewer, and wouldn't not airing the episode just be another form of censorship?

Ratings should be based on content, not the other way around. If there's objectionable content, change the rating. It's that simple.

I guess that in your ideal world it could be that simple, but that can't be how television operates because series often don't have all their episodes done and dusted by the time the first ones start airing, and pilot episodes aren't picture-perfect representations of everything that a series has to offer.

Also, different programs are created with different things in mind. In some cases, the creators have a product that they want to put out — a grand idea they want to share. Artists, then. These folk shouldn't concern themselves too much with the age restrictions and ideally would just have the age rating based on the finished product so that they don't have to deal with censorship, which I'd agree with you in this case is stupid and I hate it.
There are plenty of other cases where programs are designed with the primary intention of being a show which appeals to a particular audience, which is especially common in kiddies' shows. In these scenarios, if the creators include something in an episode that they hadn't realised might be inappropriate, and this is pointed out to them, their response would usually be something akin to "oh okay whoops", making a quick edit, and no further shits given by either party.
I probably should have specified that the latter was the scenario I'd intended for my exaggerated example^[1], for which the obvious answer is "No, I don't have any problem with this form of censorship because it makes all the sense in the world. And here was I, insisting that all forms of censorship are invariably wrong. What a fool I have been. Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth, Unless. I would like to think of you as a mentor; a teacher; but above all else... a friend."

[Bamyasi]

Well I'm not actually in the U.K. and I neither do I subscribe to their television.

My mistake. Forgot you were in Ireland (not that Ireland wasn't in the UK I would never forget that).

>this dance between gays is the same as these underage girls in tiny bikinis

They're similar in that they're both deemed inappropriate and have had outcries about them for censorship, which is the discussion we're having ATM.

This. Also see spoilered text.

Though very occasionally prone to posting a myreactionlolol.gif file, I have zero interest in the 'shitposting' and 'trolling' malarkey, so typically when I ask a question of this nature then it's not rhetorical and there's a point behind it. In that regard, this all might move a bit quicker if you were to take my word as gospel, rather than getting hung up on or offended by the point behind my posts not being immediately apparent to you.

Fair enough. I know you're not a shitposter (though you should try it sometime all the cool kids are doing it it's great for stress relief), but I was talking about the red herring fallacy, which isn't always intentional.

Honestly that sounds far too convoluted and awkward to be ideal for the average viewer, and wouldn't not airing the episode just be another form of censorship?

I guess that in your ideal world it could be that simple, but that can't be how television operates because series often don't have all their episodes done and dusted by the time the first ones start airing, and pilot episodes aren't picture-perfect representations of everything that a series has to offer.

Remember, your original point was about having explicit sex scenes in a children's show. If the creators want to do that, they should be allowed, but of course there's a procedure for getting it aired. I was only addressing that. Obviously this Steven Universe censorship is stupid and not airing the episode wouldn't change that.

Also, different programs are created with different things in mind. In some cases, the creators have a product that they want to put out — a grand idea they want to share. Artists, then. These folk shouldn't concern themselves too much with the age restrictions and ideally would just have the age rating based on the finished product so that they don't have to deal with censorship, which I'd agree with you in this case is stupid and I hate it.
There are plenty of other cases where programs are designed with the primary intention of being a show which appeals to a particular audience, which is especially common in kiddies' shows. In these scenarios, if the creators include something in an episode that they hadn't realised might be inappropriate, and this is pointed out to them, their response would usually be something akin to "oh okay whoops", making a quick edit, and no further shits given by either party.

I was referring to "artists" in the broadest possible sense, to include "Korean sweatshop in-between animator."

Regarding your second point, I was only talking about content that would clearly and deliberately violate the rating, like your hypothetical sex scene. Of course there will be collaboration between the network and the animators, but as long as it's kept behind closed doors and the lingerie isn't aired in public, it's still part of the creative process (in which case you might point to the R. Mika example but that was done explicitly in the interest of SJWs, not the SF demographic, so it's irrelevant).
[spoiler=Optional reading not essential to discussion]What I take primary issue with, and what these instances have in common as a point of discussion, is the disparity between two international releases of the same product. "Aha," you might say, "but isn't that localization?" Well, yes, but the localizer has a duty to deliver the authentic package to the best of their abilities, regardless of irreconcilable cultural differences. Even if they're drowning in hate mail, even if their heads roll. This is how cross-cultural communication happens. It's not like trying to hide this stuff works out these days anyway, what with the internet having rebuilt the world as basically a bloated cyber-model of the Streisand estate.

Nobody would tolerate this if it were a movie, nobody would tolerate this if it were a book. Maybe most wouldn't notice, but they might still feel cheated if they found out after the fact (like I did after seeing the Winestain cut of The Grandmaster in theaters). The reason cartoon and videogame censorship hits people in the viscera is because it's committed by, and in the interest of, an omnipotent mother in the doorway, arms forever akimbo, face forever frozen in bewildered disgust, posture of sexually crippling judgment. It's because these are children's media, and "Aren't you getting a little old for that anyway?" So yeah, this quest is ultimately Oedipal, a futile attempt to resist the matriarchal dictum to "play nice" on the elementary school playground, where hair pulling (not a rape analogy) should be punished in the interest of both parties, but we shouldn't have legislation to prevent it from happening. This is the point in my post where I'd normally spam backspace because it reads like a bad high school paper but I need to get this out of my system.[/spoiler]

I probably should have specified that the latter was the scenario I'd intended for my exaggerated example^[1], for which the obvious answer is "No, I don't have any problem with this form of censorship because it makes all the sense in the world. And here was I, insisting that all forms of censorship are invariably wrong. What a fool I have been. Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth, Unless. I would like to think of you as a mentor; a teacher; but above all else... a friend."

But if your original example was exaggerated, why would you use it in an argument? You've only succeeded in making both of us (especially me) look stupid.

Well I guess this little disagreement will only serve to bring us closer in the end, so I'm glad that was your intention all along.

[Unless]

Anything for a friend.

[Gladius]

will never watch

[rtil]

will never watch

[Gladius]

will never watch

its me moon man

[valiums]

will never watch

its me moon man

it is i your sun son
do you still love me father



[spoiler]+pp for avatar joke[/spoiler]

[Gladius]

tee hee

[Bamyasi]

When your worst nightmares come true.

[crackers]

ye we only get naughty stuff after the watershed (9 PM) so if you wanna see your gay toons getting it on you'll have to wait until then ;o <3 xxxx

[Bamyasi]

crackers are you aware the avatar you're using once belonged to our dear admin (hallowed be his name).

[crackers]

he lives on through me

[Bamyasi]

Don't forget to summon his holy spirit using the @ symbol when you are in danger.

Also, I wanted a chance to defend this now that literally no one cares anymore but it's also related to recent discussions:

Pharrell Williams - It Girl

This is definitely more bad than good but I was so confused as to why I was watching Pharrell sing along to biki clad lolis that I ended up in the wrong thread.

I am confident that in 10, 20, or 100 years from now, this will be reviewed as the most subversive gesture by the superflat movement, if not of the decade in popular arts. Regardless of what you think of the music (which I happen to like, mostly after the 2:38 mark) or the artstyle, or the rotoscoping, or the montage (which I think is fantastic, and what contemporary cinema would strive to be like if it were still allowed to be an artform), you have to admit what Mr. and utamaro did here was brilliant, which was: turn casual music listeners and Pharrell fans into lolicon (fine, "moe") consumers for 5 whole minutes. It doesn't matter where you fall in the hebephilia debate, it's completely unrelated, what matters is that two artists hijacked a mainstream persona (with or without his complete awareness, I'm betting with) and inserted themselves directly into a culture in which they and their art would never be wholly welcomed.

Anybody who doesn't appreciate that simply doesn't appreciate nuanced subversion in the arts, which is fine, but those people are missing out.

[SrsSam77]

is this guy a weeb?
I know he also did a video with miku

[Bamyasi]

Pretty sure all rappers are deep down.