Can censorship be good sometimes?

Aib Ld

Aib Ld

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Doesn't only apply for designs that are intended to be sexual obviously.
With that aside and to make it serious, there are some things and designs taken that are just better than the original but if I say so, people would flock only to say "that means you support censorship". It doesn't mean I support it, but rather I like the creative liberates that is a workaround or simply the new version is miles better.
Examples I could bring up:
  • Shadow Realm was original from 4kids
  • Xenosaga Albedo, a god, ripping off his own head with his bare hands in the censored version instead of using a knife
  • A speech bubble covering up someone's nudity for intentional comedic purposes
  • Character designs that are flat out better than the original.
  • "Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-through-Friday plane" was allegadely still the script-writer's/SLJ's idea to be entertaining in the TV edit of Snakes on a Plane and was still memorable because of it.
  • Half-Baked: "I sucked feet for crack. You ever suck foot for marijuana!?" instead of "I suck dick for crack."
  • Kill Bill: Bride's nickname is censored in later releases on Part 1, but was revealed in Part 2 for a storytelling factor.
  • Other releases of It purposely leaving out the gangbang scene from the book.
  • Free speech in general to prevent things like CP and so on
It just feels like people think all censorship is bad and shouldn't be supported, but purposely leave out changes that made a media better. I think it's just nowadays censorship is so rampant and how it was done turned out so shit, that people remember the bad things more than the good things, few as they are.
Should censorship should flat out not be supported no matter how good it was, or should people somehow support changes that turned out to be good?

Edited to add more non-weeb changes
 
Last edited:
  • Lunacy
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Inebriated Med Warrior, Jonah Hill poster, BlueSpark and 2 others
Uh, are you alright friend? Are you just have a bit of a sperg about your cartoons?

Sometimes challenges and limitations can give rise to creativity, that's how life is. I don't know if that necessarily makes those challenges or limitations good or bad. They're just a thing. Sometimes things that seem like they'll be awful can lead to the proudest successes, and sometimes things that seem like they'll be a godsend wind up being being a person's greatest curse.

It's all about what you make of it; people who suck will find a way to waste every opportunity, people who don't will find a way to make the most of even the worst tragedies.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: hellogoodmorning, Chocolate Wombat and Syaoran Li
If you're gonna reference weeb shit, the Nelvana Cardcaptors dub removed all subtext of a teacher-student relationship, especially between an 11-year-old and her homeroom teacher (the anime toned it down in the original, but it's still there). This is one of those very few exceptions to the rule.

FCC broadcast guidelines were always bullshit, but it was unfortunately a necessary evil for a lot of kids' shows. We're just now ironically experiencing the horseshoe theory in effect when it comes to cartoons now where they want to insert genderspecial and creepy pedo shit into every cartoon and the networks aren't exactly going after them, but networks will go after anything that dares call out the ideological shit for what it is (like why even cancel Last Man Standing unless it was because Tim Allen was hurting some libtards' feeling?).
 
awoo said:
Why did you only reference a bunch of fucking weeb media
Click to expand...
True. It (book) was already posted, so another I might bring to the table is Snakes on a Plane. While not really that good, "Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-through-Friday plane" was allegadely still the script-writer's/SLJ's idea to be entertaining in the TV edit and was still memorable because of it.


EDIT:
Lord of the Large Pants said:
The only thing that's made me think it might be a good thing is, of all things, It. The gangbang scene from the book has never been included in any of the movie versions, and I can't help but think they're better off for it.
Click to expand...
I can get that its intended to be uncomfortable, but it just felt really strange to read in the first place. Still doesn't beat his Library Police book, where he really went to graphic descriptions on an adult raping a child and I just had to skip that section because holy shit, I didn't want to read that bit. The feeling was intended, but the point still stands.
 
Last edited:
No, isn't.
Hokuto no Ken had some changes in some kills made by Kenshiro in the anime.
Manga was more gruesome and epic. Anime was a bit more lame but still shocking at least.
 
Kari Kamiya said:
If you're gonna reference weeb shit, the Nelvana Cardcaptors dub removed all subtext of a teacher-student relationship, especially between an 11-year-old and her homeroom teacher (the anime toned it down in the original, but it's still there). This is one of those very few exceptions to the rule.

FCC broadcast guidelines were always bullshit, but it was unfortunately a necessary evil for a lot of kids' shows. We're just now ironically experiencing the horseshoe theory in effect when it comes to cartoons now where they want to insert genderspecial and creepy pedo shit into every cartoon and the networks aren't exactly going after them, but networks will go after anything that dares call out the ideological shit for what it is (like why even cancel Last Man Standing unless it was because Tim Allen was hurting some libtards' feeling?).
Click to expand...
Cardcaptors censored pretty much the entire show though. They just happened to hit the one thing that probably deserved it as a matter of collateral damage.
 
Despite the fact that this is just OP having a spergfest about chinese girl cartoons there's a paradigm I've been thinking about when it comes to mass news media and censorship.

Having a news media that broadcasts the truth is actually impossible; either it's inherently capitalist in which cases it's all sensationalist nonsense because that's what brings in viewership or it's controlled by an outside force in which case it serves an agenda.

In the case of it all being purely sensationalist it is damaging to the nation state and serves to do nothing but sew discord because that's what draws attention and therefore capital where as if it's controlled and censored it can potentially serve towards the stability of the nation state.

If you accept that it is presently impossible for any form of news media to report on anything factually than at the very least the latter doesn't have to result in niggers burning down half the country if the higher ups say no where as the former will always go where the juiciest and most outrage provoking shit is simply because that's what's the most monetarily viable approach. Consequences be damned.

So yeah. I'd rather have a Fuhrer loyal to his nation overseeing what the vultures and parasites known as journalists are allowed to say under threat of getting shot through the fucking skull over the present reality of a cartel of rich cunts spouting faux-communist talking points to keep everyone divided.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: PFM, ABE LINN COHN and The Foxtrot
PipTheAlchemist said:
Censorship is always faggoty moralfags imposing their will upon the public, without consent. No exceptions
Click to expand...
What about CP, copyright, defamation, incitement, true threats, fighting words, SSN details/credit card details, blackmail, perjury or obscenity? Clearly, speech is regulated to some degree or another. For example, what if I just revealed a secret to how you can make a nuclear bomb at home that could end all life as we know it out of just simple ingredients, would you fight for the right to say that openly?

EDIT: Btw, I am not saying that hate speech should EVER be criminalized simply because that speech is not inherently harmful. But in some forms it is.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Crabouse-united, Lowlife Adventures and PFM
I'm not going to say that censorship is wrong in 100% of all possible situations that may exist; however, censorship is never a tool to be used and celebrated. Censoring something should be a somber, contemplative experience if it is the outcome you find yourself standing before. A lot of things will have had to been attempted and failed before you pull censorship out of the toolbox and it should neither be fun nor remembered fondly.

Censorship should be exceedingly rare and a last resort and nearly every situation likely has a better resolution available as an outcome.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures, Inebriated Med Warrior, Osmosis Jones and 1 other person
Typically, I'm anti censorship as I think violence and sexy stuff in media are not inherently bad if portrayed in the appropriate manner. Most instances of the two examples seem generally okay as violence is integral to some types of stories and sexy stuff is just something humans are into, no shame in that.

Now, off into the exceptions. Children's media should have violence and sexy stuff toned down or be non-existent depending on the target demographics for obvious reasons. Sexualization of minors needs to be abandoned in all media. Im sick of watching something and it being all "wow isn't this teenager sexy!" I can't even watch a transformers movie without this shit. There is no need for minors to be sexualized and their depiction in media in this way has no arguable benefits.

Though this one is arguable, I think that if the story can function well without shocking levels of violence or sexy stuff, it should stay away from them. For example, A Clockwork Orange could have still been a memorable and quality movie without depicting every deprived act (such as rape) the protagonist engages in. In my opinion, it would have made a larger cultural impact if it were toned down because the way it explores morality and free will is very compelling. On the other hand, 300 is simply not 300 without the extreme violence. It's just part of that movie's aesthetic and it would suffer without it.

If you want to see a questionable scene from Transformers 4 that illustrates my problem with it's depiction of minors then here it is:
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: ABE LINN COHN and Aib Ld
I think you should have the right to say anything (as long as you’re not trying to brainwash kids so you can fuck them). By that same token, I should be able to tell you to kill yourself for your terrible opinions without being imprisoned.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Inebriated Med Warrior and Aib Ld
I was watching Half Baked on Comedy Central over 10 years ago, and Bob Saget (RIP) did his little "I used to suck dick for coke" bit, but they censored dick with "feet". I found it almost as funny as the original, and the ADR was terribly done making it even better,
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Pissmaster and Aib Ld
Too Many Catgirls said:
I'm not going to say that censorship is wrong in 100% of all possible situations that may exist; however, censorship is never a tool to be used and celebrated. Censoring something should be a somber, contemplative experience if it is the outcome you find yourself standing before. A lot of things will have had to been attempted and failed before you pull censorship out of the toolbox and it should neither be fun nor remembered fondly.

Censorship should be exceedingly rare and a last resort and nearly every situation likely has a better resolution available as an outcome.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm not really sure "censorship" was a better word to use while making this topic. Sure, some examples I mentioned in the first post were obviously the work of censorship, but there are some other media like books that became TV/movies have certain scenes purposely left out.
Like, bringing up IT again, the gangbang scene was meant to be gross with nuance, and purposely plays to the emotional side than the physical side. If it was in the movies, then that will be a problem due to a whole lot of factors. Is it censorship to leave out that part in the movies? I don't really think so, just a necessary change because it works in the book and would be impossible to emulate in the movies (aside from the obvious problems).
Breaking Dawn (I know about bringing up Twilight, but bear with me here) has necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia for a bunch of plot points, but it was missing in movies. While they are gross subjects, they were left out and so censored.
Nobody should had their work censored, but I do know there are some factors that plays with some things where people on the creator's side and the behind-the-scenes side had to really think on how to make something work. Most people views censorship as the "think of the kids!" kind, and rarely the other kind where it needed to have some thought, where they start as 'changes' and the last resort is called 'censorship' when there's no choice left and nothing works.
Some changes do work as well to stand on its own like "I suck dick/feet for crack" in Half-Baked.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Too Many Catgirls
The conventional wisdom is too much gore or incitement can be harmful. Personally, i think stupid people should be able to say whatever they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back