It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
The JRPG Days are not over yet!
You've been playing Zwei: The Arges Adventure and Legrand Legacy: Tale of the Fatebounds while snagging genre classics on the cheap from our jRPG Days sale. Now it's time to take a look behind the scenes: team leader Ken Berry and localization producer Thomas Lipschultz have taken some time to chat with us about how XSEED handles the release and localization of their beloved JRPG series.
The interview is broken down into two parts, for convenience. Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow, January 30.

So, let's start with a quick year in review – from your professional point of view, has 2017 been good to Japanese games in the West?

Ken: Yes, I would say that 2017 has been a very good year for Japanese games in the West. The obvious big winner is Nintendo with their extremely successful launch of the Switch, as I remember some Japanese executives being concerned whether the idea of one machine being both a home console and a portable machine could succeed in North America where public transportation is not nearly as prevalent as Japan.
The PC platform also continues to get more support from the Japanese gaming industry. Not only are you seeing more instances of simultaneous PC launches with the console release, but they seem to be gradually accepting the idea of DRM-free on PC as well, which had always been a huge challenge in the past because they would often mistakenly equate “DRM-free” to “free.”

A lot can be said about different sensibilities in Japan vs. the West. In the past year, maybe more than ever, sexuality, sexualization, and consent, are talked about in mainstream Western culture – taboos are being broken and lines being drawn. Has this had an impact on your approach and your work?

Tom: As a company, I think it’s definitely made us stop and take stock of a game’s content a lot earlier in the process than ever before, so we know well in advance whether there will be any potentially problematic content, and can prepare ourselves to deal with that content as production ramps up.
For me specifically, it’s been kind of an inner struggle, as I think a lot of people are aware that I have a personal zero-tolerance policy for censorship in video games, along with a fairly broad definition of what constitutes censorship (for me, it consists of any content changes made not out of legal or contractual necessity, but solely in an attempt to avoid offending or upsetting members of the target audience). Despite this, I do fully understand that from a business standpoint – and even from a moral standpoint – it’s always best to avoid upsetting your fans, because obviously, an upset fan is not going to remain a fan for very long, and signing off on upsetting or troublesome language or imagery is never something anyone wants to do!
The problem I have, though, is that I truly do consider video games – ALL video games – to be art, and just as it wouldn’t feel right to me if someone painted over offensive material in a painting, edited out offensive material in a book, or cut offensive material from a film, I don’t want to see anyone (least of all us) editing out offensive material in games. My thought is, if it’s that offensive, then we probably shouldn’t be releasing the game at all – though that’s obviously not always a realistic option.
Recently, however, with all the news that’s come out about systemic sexual harassment and abuse in Hollywood and elsewhere, as well as the issues being faced by the LGBTQ community in this modern political climate, it’s become much harder to justify maintaining a zero-tolerance approach – and with a lot of Japanese games starting to really push the boundaries of “good taste” more and more, the looming threat of censorship has become much larger and more imposing than ever, and certainly more of a beast to fight on multiple levels. And it’s really not a battle I WANT to fight – I’d rather just localize games that everybody can enjoy!
I still hold firm in my belief, however, that if we want video games to be classified as an art form on par with books, films, and paintings, we need to maintain zero tolerance for censorship in localization, no matter how offensive the content we’re localizing may be. And if there’s any positive to be gained by doing so, it’s that the presence of offensive content in localized titles will spark much-needed discussion about those topics, and hopefully lead to a dialogue on the state of the industry in Japan, possibly even resulting in creators being a little more cognizant of people outside their tight-knit circle of acquaintances when designing new titles from here on out.
But for the immediate future, I believe content alteration will occur a little more often in the West than it has before (hopefully not by us, but regrettably, that isn’t outside the realm of possibility!), while little else will change for the industry overseas. My solace lies in the thought that we’ll just keep getting more games like the Zwei titles to work on: superb examples of classic action JRPG design with content that’s often snarky and a little mischievous, but never crosses the line into offensive territory, and thus isn’t at any risk of being toned down in localization. Those remain a joy to work on, and the more games of that sort I’m given, the less worried I’ll be about censorship moving forward.

The titles. We need to talk about the game titles...
What is it that makes Japanese naming conventions so different? How do you approach localizing a game's title, and what does it take to make it work in the West?


Tom: I don’t think most Japanese naming conventions are all that different, honestly, save for the fact that they’re usually much longer than the names we tend to see here (with subtitles on top of subtitles, e.g. “Corpse Party: BloodCovered: …Repeated Fear”). Which, I believe, is mostly attributable to some general differences in the way games are advertised in Japan, with more text meaning a bigger poster on the wall and more space allotted to discuss the game in print… not to mention the ability to strike a pose and rattle off a long name, looking and sounding kind of dorkily awesome in the process!
In the Western world, though, we’re definitely all about succinct naming: something short and to the point, that rolls off the tongue, with one or two words being the ideal. Especially if it’s unique enough to be Googlable! We want the name to be easy to remember so that prospective fans can always find information on it at a moment’s notice, even if they haven’t heard anyone talking about the game for quite some time.
I assume you’re speaking more in terms of translations, though (“Sen no Kiseki” → “Trails of Cold Steel”), as well as the rare addition of subtitles (“Zwei!!” → “Zwei: The Arges Adventure”). In the former case, the goal is to come up with something that remains relatively true to the original Japanese but still sounds snappy and natural in English, with bonus points for picking a name that perfectly fits the tone and content of the game (as “Trails of Cold Steel” most definitely does).
And in the latter case, we were really just trying to avoid drawing attention to the fact that we were releasing “Zwei II” before “Zwei” – a luxury afforded us by the fact that the two games tell standalone stories, and necessitated by the fact that Zwei II was finished and ready for release quite a bit sooner. We considered numerous possible subtitles for both games, but ultimately chose “The Ilvard Insurrection” for Zwei II because… well, it preserved the acronym, “Zwei:II”!
We attempted something similar with the first game, but despite our best attempts, we couldn’t come up with any viable names that would form the acronyms ONE, EINS, or even WAN, nor any single-word subtitles beginning with the letter I. We settled on AA to preserve the double lettering of Ilvard Insurrection, and because A is the first letter of the alphabet… and also because the first Zwei is a pretty tough game, so we anticipated a lot of people would be saying “AAAAAA” when playing it!
Post edited January 29, 2018 by maladr0Id
high rated
avatar
dtgreene: The people who are actually harmed by the art in question, of course.
"Harmed" you mean like people showing up and punching them in the face or shooting up their building? Because if it's anything else, it's feelings. And really, I don't care if it hurts your feelings, or my feelings either. What I care about is someone who thinks that because it hurts their feelings, they have the right to censor something. And they believe that they're justified in using violence to censor it. That's pure cancer, it's destructive to the medium and society at a larger scale.

In the current state of the world, we've been seeing groups of people losing their jobs, families, and in some cases their lives for their art and so on based on someones "feelings being hurt." Nothing criminal, no actual damage. But simply outrage, over hurt feelings. But the people who engage in that outrage and witch hunt, or go out of their way to physically attack people should be charged criminally to the fullest extent of the law.

And there's quite a few groups of people that believe that "censoring something" will stop people from going down that path. It doesn't work, capitulation only emboldens them. If you need an example, then go look up the garbage surrounding H&M and their hoodie..
avatar
richlind33: Nevertheless, communication necessitates being able to listen, and think rationally.

That's exactly how the establishment wants "the left" and "the right" to see each other.
avatar
kohlrak: Well, if the left is different, they need to separate themselves first. The right is doing a good job, yet the left is blatantly ignoring it, putting their fingers in their ears, and screaming "la la la la la la la," even if we point it out to them. Meanwhile in places where "personal attacks are not allowed," we see leftists getting the rules applied to them selectively (egosoft forums, i'm looking at you, as well as any number of other websites). Until the massive swathes of the left start banding together against this sort of thing just like the right has, it's very hard for me to see that it isn't the left who is the establishment, especially given the huge support of the left from the boomer generation. Unlike most times throughout history, the boomers still support the left in their old age, which gave the left unprecedented control in becoming the establishment.
The people who run the show are not of "the right" or "the left". They are practitioners of The Art Of War, not political science. The Left/Right paradigm is a false dichotomy that causes us to squander our energy, while our nation's lifeblood is drained.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by richlind33
avatar
RoseLegion: That's exactly how the establishment wants "the left" and "the right" to see each other.
avatar
stullz: It's also how they see centrists/moderates. Both deal only in absolutes (though this is one instance where I see this mentality being far more prevalent on the left than the right). And when those are the groups you're trying to deal with... well... it never gets anything done.
Nations that are polarized in this fashion are politically defenseless.
avatar
RoseLegion: What if how you define a group label and how someone who identifies what that same term aren't identical?
avatar
kohlrak: Welcome to the nature of human interactions as a whole. In theory, this is a huge problem, in practice it really isn't.
To the best of my knowladge there has been actual genocide based on how people were labeled by an occupying colonal power (I believe it was the Dutch in this case but it's been several years since my reading of that).

There are also countless examples of conflict fed purely by misrepresenting "the other" which is exactly what this sort of miscommunication/split meaning fosters.

History is rife with examples of miscommunication leading to poor outcomes, not a few of which include bloodshed, that's a big enough problem in pratice, at least in my book.

avatar
kohlrak: It's quite productive. Instead of listening to a Christian, for example, rattle off on how they believe in Jesus Christ, that people are bad, etc, we could actually focus on where he's different from the mainstream, which is far more useful: Maybe he admits the bible was edited? Maybe he acknowledges translation errors can exist? Maybe he admits story X was a story and not a rule and, thus, not part of the big message of the bible? It's quite helpful. Also, if my label is wrong, you'll find a new label that you can identify with, then tell me all about how you're not exactly fit into that category, either. Quite useful, actually. If you get offended, maybe you should take stock and ask yourself why you fit the label so well in someone else's eyes if you don't like the label.
And again this is divorced from my initial comment, you seem quite clear on the other points/aspects we are discussing, agree or no, that it baffles me how you continue to think this line of commentary is at all related to what I initially said.

If your point is that engading someone based on how they self identify could be useful then sure I've not raised any objection to that.
If your point is that taking a term someone uses to self identify and catagorically defining all who either claim that term or who others think fight many/all of the critieran they ascribe to it and then addressing that nebulous theoritical mass is useful, well I disagree.
In either case you've kept supplying theortical contexts which bear no direct application to what I was initially saying there. I'm open to discussing those things but equating my suggestion to stullz that labels don't help discourse with any sort of commentary on how a content creator should respond to being cencored, is simply off track.
avatar
stullz: It's also how they see centrists/moderates. Both deal only in absolutes (though this is one instance where I see this mentality being far more prevalent on the left than the right). And when those are the groups you're trying to deal with... well... it never gets anything done.
avatar
richlind33: Nations that are polarized in this fashion are politically defenseless.
Yep, get the populace too busy 'scoring points for their team' and sometimes things like discussing policy that's being enacted and codified as law never even happens.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by RoseLegion
avatar
kohlrak: If i said that chinese people are short, is it the short chinese people or the tall chinese people who are likely to get offended? Given that it's right over 50% of the time, i think it'd be the select few short people that aren't happy being short. The tall person laughs and say, "yo, what about me?"
It may be true that Chinese people are shorter on average than other people (claim unverified, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend it is), but it's not necessarily true that *all* Chinese people are short. In particular, it is not safe to say that, because a person is Chinese, they are short, and hence not allow Chinese people on to rides that require a certain height. What if you have a Chinese person who is tall enough to go on the ride, but is rejected solely on account of being Chinese?

This reminds me of the situation that Oprah Winfrey (who is black and extremely wealthy) encountered once; she went into a fancy purse shop, but wasn't allowed to buy any because they were "too expensive"; excuse me, but she's a millionaire; she can afford your purses.

A similar situation comes up when talking about army fitness requirements. If a woman can meet the same fitness standards as men who serve in combat roles, why shouldn't she be allowed to serve in such a role? Even if men are stronger than women on average, that doesn't justify excluding women from the position entirely.


These two sentences contradict each other. Maybe you want to say "unlikely" instead of "likely"?

(The other possible fix would be to remove the word "not" in the first sentence, but then it would be at odds with the rest of your post.)
avatar
RoseLegion: Yep that's a typeo, should read "it's unlikely to be identical..."
And, of course, you make a "typeo" in your reply to me pointing out the typo. (Fortunately, unlike the other typo, this one doesn't result in the sentence having the opposite meaning.)
Post edited January 30, 2018 by dtgreene
avatar
RoseLegion: That's exactly how the establishment wants "the left" and "the right" to see each other.
avatar
stullz: It's also how they see centrists/moderates. Both deal only in absolutes (though this is one instance where I see this mentality being far more prevalent on the left than the right). And when those are the groups you're trying to deal with... well... it never gets anything done.
Working with, or as, pre-defined groups rarely gets things done.
Working based on given issues rather than whole cloth agendas lets people support what they actually support rather than either opting out or selecting the team that they find the least objectionable.

avatar
RoseLegion: Yep that's a typeo, should read "it's unlikely to be identical..."
avatar
dtgreene: And, of course, you make a "typeo" in your reply to me pointing out the typo. (Fortunately, unlike the other typo, this one doesn't result in the sentence having the opposite meaning.)
That one sadly is just a case of me failing to spell correctly.
Dyslexia is unkind when it comes to spelling so I tend to struggle there and spell check doesn't always make up the difference lol
avatar
richlind33: Nations that are polarized in this fashion are politically defenseless.
avatar
RoseLegion: Yep, get the populace too busy 'scoring points for their team' and sometimes things like discussing policy that's being enacted and codified as law never even happens.
Certainly not when it comes to economic policy, or foreign relations. Just let the partisan dupes pull their hair out over wedge issues while the nation sinks down into the gutter.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by richlind33
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: The people who are actually harmed by the art in question, of course.
avatar
Hitchno: "Harmed" you mean like people showing up and punching them in the face or shooting up their building? Because if it's anything else, it's feelings. And really, I don't care if it hurts your feelings, or my feelings either. What I care about is someone who thinks that because it hurts their feelings, they have the right to censor something. And they believe that they're justified in using violence to censor it. That's pure cancer, it's destructive to the medium and society at a larger scale.

In the current state of the world, we've been seeing groups of people losing their jobs, families, and in some cases their lives for their art and so on based on someones "feelings being hurt." Nothing criminal, no actual damage. But simply outrage, over hurt feelings. But the people who engage in that outrage and witch hunt, or go out of their way to physically attack people should be charged criminally to the fullest extent of the law.

And there's quite a few groups of people that believe that "censoring something" will stop people from going down that path. It doesn't work, capitulation only emboldens them. If you need an example, then go look up the garbage surrounding H&M and their hoodie..
Except that emotional harm is still real harm, and the wrong words can cause emotional harm.

If a person experiences enough physical harm, they will, of course, die. If a person experiences enough emotional harm, they will, eventually, commit suicide and die.

So, emotional harm is just as real as physical harm.

Also, you might want to read about what triggers really are. For example, a rape survivor, on reading a depiction of rape, might suddenly start re-experiencing the trauma associated with said rape; in this case, the depiction of rape triggered that person's PTSD from the rape experience. Such a person would be harmed, in fact, by depictions of rape in media; hence the need for trigger warnings in such situations. (Remember, people who are not triggered by such things are free to ignore the warnings.)
avatar
dtgreene: Except that emotional harm is still real harm, and the wrong words can cause emotional harm.

If a person experiences enough physical harm, they will, of course, die. If a person experiences enough emotional harm, they will, eventually, commit suicide and die.

So, emotional harm is just as real as physical harm.

Also, you might want to read about what triggers really are. For example, a rape survivor, on reading a depiction of rape, might suddenly start re-experiencing the trauma associated with said rape; in this case, the depiction of rape triggered that person's PTSD from the rape experience. Such a person would be harmed, in fact, by depictions of rape in media; hence the need for trigger warnings in such situations. (Remember, people who are not triggered by such things are free to ignore the warnings.)
I'll posit that the reason people tend to be so vulnerable is because we live in dysfunctional societies where we are constantly subjected to toxic levels of stress. Trigger warnings, IMHO, aren't going to make up for that.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by richlind33
Censorship is bad. A game shouldn't be censored because a few "fans" are offended by its content. If it's a problem with ESRB, then stop releasing on consoles already. Games on PC don't need ESRB ratings, so the problem is solved.
avatar
kohlrak: Well, if the left is different, they need to separate themselves first. The right is doing a good job, yet the left is blatantly ignoring it, putting their fingers in their ears, and screaming "la la la la la la la," even if we point it out to them. Meanwhile in places where "personal attacks are not allowed," we see leftists getting the rules applied to them selectively (egosoft forums, i'm looking at you, as well as any number of other websites). Until the massive swathes of the left start banding together against this sort of thing just like the right has, it's very hard for me to see that it isn't the left who is the establishment, especially given the huge support of the left from the boomer generation. Unlike most times throughout history, the boomers still support the left in their old age, which gave the left unprecedented control in becoming the establishment.
avatar
RoseLegion: It's very hard for me to see how these categorical statements are useful to you, but I don't know your background so perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me. What are your top five (or three, or ten, whatever you'd like) examples where this type of rhetoric has created results you are pleased with? I personally have found far more utility in addressing issues without pointing them at groups, and people without putting them in categories, but perhaps your experience differs?
Just about any time i engage with a nihilist the conversation doesn't have to continue much further: Nihilism without hedonism doesn't go very far, and with hedonism, the conversation isn't overly useful. Those are my top two labels that, if i ever get to that point in a conversation, it saves time. Atheism is another fairly useful label: there's certain things that almost always come with it, and if you run into an atheist that either doesn't hate religion or actually understands it, the conversation usually perks up a bit. Communist label has saved me alot of time in many cases, just give them a podium and ask where money comes from. Anarchists, you can dismantle the core argument rather quickly (like a minute), and if they have a decent argument, they'll build up a new core rather quickly (just by attacking the comment that they have an answer for) and you can have a useful conversation, wherer you can actually consider the viability of it. Globalist tends to go down quickly, since most globalists also say they're for something else (usually some form of freedom), at which point you point out that until alot more changes, they can't have their cake and eat it too.a

Ironically, applying a label to islam usually opens up a dialogue that's useful: either they're an open supporter of terrorists or they openly speak out against terrorist organizations, and without even mentioning "terrorist" it tends to come to the table rather quickly. If they're a terrorist supporter, put them on the podium and let them shoot off their mouths. If they're not, talk about what we can do to reduce the numbers of terrorist supporters.

avatar
stullz: Keep in mind I'm using their own terms for their own labels, otherwise the troll in me would be breaking the snowflake, sjw, and regressive labels :) That said a day doesn't go by where I don't see that side lumping all gamers together in a negative fashion. And I'm somebody who tries to find and build from positivity.
Which "they" though? And are you using the terms in the same way/to mean the same things "they" do/would?

In my exprience very few people are as simple as the talking points pumped out by political and media marketing

If someone is going to be hostile to an idea then they will be without the extra baggage of an us vs them group label, but I haven't seen those labels de-escalate a discussion or heighten clarity and focus on the subject, usually they tend to drag in other subjects and spike emotions or at minimum artificially create 'teams'.

Personally I've had far more success in building from positivity (to borrow your phrase :) ) when I don't engadge in drawing up sides even (or perhaps especially) when others seem intent on doing so. Your milage may vary, but it's worked pretty well for me.
avatar
kohlrak: Welcome to the nature of human interactions as a whole. In theory, this is a huge problem, in practice it really isn't.
avatar
RoseLegion: To the best of my knowladge there has been actual genocide based on how people were labeled by an occupying colonal power (I believe it was the Dutch in this case but it's been several years since my reading of that).

There are also countless examples of conflict fed purely by misrepresenting "the other" which is exactly what this sort of miscommunication/split meaning fosters.

History is rife with examples of miscommunication leading to poor outcomes, not a few of which include bloodshed, that's a big enough problem in pratice, at least in my book.
Dehumanizing is inherent in labeling, but what this outlines is the issue that humans don't regain the humanization. This is the real issue that needs to be solved, as "the other" isn't even useful as a label outside of the dehumanizing effect. Let's target the real problem: people lack perspective.

avatar
kohlrak: It's quite productive. Instead of listening to a Christian, for example, rattle off on how they believe in Jesus Christ, that people are bad, etc, we could actually focus on where he's different from the mainstream, which is far more useful: Maybe he admits the bible was edited? Maybe he acknowledges translation errors can exist? Maybe he admits story X was a story and not a rule and, thus, not part of the big message of the bible? It's quite helpful. Also, if my label is wrong, you'll find a new label that you can identify with, then tell me all about how you're not exactly fit into that category, either. Quite useful, actually. If you get offended, maybe you should take stock and ask yourself why you fit the label so well in someone else's eyes if you don't like the label.
And again this is divorced from my initial comment, you seem quite clear on the other points/aspects we are discussing, agree or no, that it baffles me how you continue to think this line of commentary is at all related to what I initially said.
Doesn't have to be tied to the initial comment. I came in late, and I see the argument that you're making right now.

If your point is that engading someone based on how they self identify could be useful then sure I've not raised any objection to that.
If your point is that taking a term someone uses to self identify and catagorically defining all who either claim that term or who others think fight many/all of the critieran they ascribe to it and then addressing that nebulous theoritical mass is useful, well I disagree.
That's where the group can say "that guy is not one of us." I can say, Nancy Pelosy does not fall under the definition of catholic, even though i'm not catholic. If someone is different from their label, you call it out.

In either case you've kept supplying theortical contexts which bear no direct application to what I was initially saying there. I'm open to discussing those things but equating my suggestion to stullz that labels don't help discourse with any sort of commentary on how a content creator should respond to being cencored, is simply off track.
I don't care what you initially said: i care about what you're saying now. Labels are useful, and as long as you can speak, you can argue against the label which you or someone else assigns you.

avatar
richlind33: Nations that are polarized in this fashion are politically defenseless.
Yep, get the populace too busy 'scoring points for their team' and sometimes things like discussing policy that's being enacted and codified as law never even happens.
Which is where people need to ask themselves whether or not the team is really who they are. The left, for example again, talks about women's rights all the time, including how we should take rape more seriously, yet when they go after Republicans, one has to ask why they refuse to go after their own side. This makes the left as a whole, look like hyprocrites, which can be very useful. The sheeple really are, since they tow the label line, so if you find someone that says they care about women's rights and they apply it consistently instead, then they've earned loosing the label, a changed label, an exception to the label, or something, at which point dialogue can begin since it's no longer a waste of time.

EDIT: There seems to be a quote limit per post, and since double posting gets merged into one post, i can't post the rest of my response until someone posts again.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by kohlrak
high rated
I do not want any censorship at all in my games. I also do not want to change the culture of Japan so that there is "no need to censor." A lot of the complaining is done by a vocal minority that does not represent the West.
avatar
Bubble_Man: I do not want any censorship at all in my games. I also do not want to change the culture of Japan so that there is "no need to censor." A lot of the complaining is done by a vocal minority that does not represent the West.
I love you, sir.


avatar
kohlrak: Well, if the left is different, they need to separate themselves first. The right is doing a good job, yet the left is blatantly ignoring it, putting their fingers in their ears, and screaming "la la la la la la la," even if we point it out to them. Meanwhile in places where "personal attacks are not allowed," we see leftists getting the rules applied to them selectively (egosoft forums, i'm looking at you, as well as any number of other websites). Until the massive swathes of the left start banding together against this sort of thing just like the right has, it's very hard for me to see that it isn't the left who is the establishment, especially given the huge support of the left from the boomer generation. Unlike most times throughout history, the boomers still support the left in their old age, which gave the left unprecedented control in becoming the establishment.
avatar
richlind33: The people who run the show are not of "the right" or "the left". They are practitioners of The Art Of War, not political science. The Left/Right paradigm is a false dichotomy that causes us to squander our energy, while our nation's lifeblood is drained.
From what I can tell, they tend to use one particular side at any given time that happens to be asleep enough to be used. Sometimes you have to go after the blind foot soldiers to get to the leaders.


avatar
Hitchno: "Harmed" you mean like people showing up and punching them in the face or shooting up their building? Because if it's anything else, it's feelings. And really, I don't care if it hurts your feelings, or my feelings either. What I care about is someone who thinks that because it hurts their feelings, they have the right to censor something. And they believe that they're justified in using violence to censor it. That's pure cancer, it's destructive to the medium and society at a larger scale.

In the current state of the world, we've been seeing groups of people losing their jobs, families, and in some cases their lives for their art and so on based on someones "feelings being hurt." Nothing criminal, no actual damage. But simply outrage, over hurt feelings. But the people who engage in that outrage and witch hunt, or go out of their way to physically attack people should be charged criminally to the fullest extent of the law.

And there's quite a few groups of people that believe that "censoring something" will stop people from going down that path. It doesn't work, capitulation only emboldens them. If you need an example, then go look up the garbage surrounding H&M and their hoodie..
avatar
dtgreene: Except that emotional harm is still real harm, and the wrong words can cause emotional harm.

If a person experiences enough physical harm, they will, of course, die. If a person experiences enough emotional harm, they will, eventually, commit suicide and die.

So, emotional harm is just as real as physical harm.
These people have a choice how they react to things. If you come at me with a knife, i don't get to choose how much it kills me.
Also, you might want to read about what triggers really are. For example, a rape survivor, on reading a depiction of rape, might suddenly start re-experiencing the trauma associated with said rape; in this case, the depiction of rape triggered that person's PTSD from the rape experience. Such a person would be harmed, in fact, by depictions of rape in media; hence the need for trigger warnings in such situations. (Remember, people who are not triggered by such things are free to ignore the warnings.)
Maybe if you can be triggered, you should actively avoid your triggers, instead of passively doing it. You know the TV is going to depict your triggers. Maybe you should opt for the internet, and stay on sites where those kinds of topics are considered off-color.
avatar
dtgreene: Except that emotional harm is still real harm, and the wrong words can cause emotional harm.

If a person experiences enough physical harm, they will, of course, die. If a person experiences enough emotional harm, they will, eventually, commit suicide and die.

So, emotional harm is just as real as physical harm.

Also, you might want to read about what triggers really are. For example, a rape survivor, on reading a depiction of rape, might suddenly start re-experiencing the trauma associated with said rape; in this case, the depiction of rape triggered that person's PTSD from the rape experience. Such a person would be harmed, in fact, by depictions of rape in media; hence the need for trigger warnings in such situations. (Remember, people who are not triggered by such things are free to ignore the warnings.)
avatar
richlind33: I'll posit that the reason people tend to be so vulnerable is because we live in dysfunctional societies where we are constantly subjected to toxic levels of stress. Trigger warnings, IMHO, aren't going to make up for that.
A trigger warning, however, can help a person avoid their triggers, provided that they know what those triggers are. This, in turn, will reduce the amount of stress experienced; it won't eliminate it, but will at least allow one source of it to be avoided.

avatar
dtgreene: Except that emotional harm is still real harm, and the wrong words can cause emotional harm.

If a person experiences enough physical harm, they will, of course, die. If a person experiences enough emotional harm, they will, eventually, commit suicide and die.

So, emotional harm is just as real as physical harm.
avatar
kohlrak: These people have a choice how they react to things. If you come at me with a knife, i don't get to choose how much it kills me.

Also, you might want to read about what triggers really are. For example, a rape survivor, on reading a depiction of rape, might suddenly start re-experiencing the trauma associated with said rape; in this case, the depiction of rape triggered that person's PTSD from the rape experience. Such a person would be harmed, in fact, by depictions of rape in media; hence the need for trigger warnings in such situations. (Remember, people who are not triggered by such things are free to ignore the warnings.)
avatar
kohlrak: Maybe if you can be triggered, you should actively avoid your triggers, instead of passively doing it. You know the TV is going to depict your triggers. Maybe you should opt for the internet, and stay on sites where those kinds of topics are considered off-color.
It's not that simple.

The point of trigger warnings, as I have pointed out, is to allow people to actively avoid their triggers. If a person is triggered by rape depictions, and a work has a "trigger warning: rape" attached to it, that person can make a choice to avoid that work. On the other hand, if said work has no trigger warning, but does include a graphic depiction of a rape scene, the person will basically be ambushed by the trigger in question.

People who are triggered still want to enjoy media; they just need to know that the media is safe for them.

(This same discussion can apply to epilepsy, or to conditions that are triggered by certain types of sound, and probably other conditions I can't think of.)
Post edited January 30, 2018 by dtgreene
avatar
richlind33: I'll posit that the reason people tend to be so vulnerable is because we live in dysfunctional societies where we are constantly subjected to toxic levels of stress. Trigger warnings, IMHO, aren't going to make up for that.
avatar
dtgreene: A trigger warning, however, can help a person avoid their triggers, provided that they know what those triggers are. This, in turn, will reduce the amount of stress experienced; it won't eliminate it, but will at least allow one source of it to be avoided.

avatar
kohlrak: These people have a choice how they react to things. If you come at me with a knife, i don't get to choose how much it kills me.

Maybe if you can be triggered, you should actively avoid your triggers, instead of passively doing it. You know the TV is going to depict your triggers. Maybe you should opt for the internet, and stay on sites where those kinds of topics are considered off-color.
avatar
dtgreene: It's not that simple.

The point of trigger warnings, as I have pointed out, is to allow people to actively avoid their triggers. If a person is triggered by rape depictions, and a work has a "trigger warning: rape" attached to it, that person can make a choice to avoid that work. On the other hand, if said work has no trigger warning, but does include a graphic depiction of a rape scene, the person will basically be ambushed by the trigger in question.

People who are triggered still want to enjoy media; they just need to know that the media is safe for them.

(This same discussion can apply to epilepsy, or to conditions that are triggered by certain types of sound, and probably other conditions I can't think of.)
This may come as a shock to you, but maybe people with conditions they're aware of probably shouldn't put themselves in situations where they can expose themselves to triggers. For example, I'm allergic to cats. I don't expect someone to put a sign on their door saying "warning, cat allergy." Most people aren't allergic to cats. I'm just going to take the time to ask.

And regarding triggers, everyone has varying degrees of triggers. Maybe the sound of children laughing triggers memories of getting bullied? So if you have a video where children laugh and are not bullied we should make sure we include a warning that it triggers PTSD from horribly bullying incidents? No, I look at pokemon and see lots of bright colors on the package. I know what i'm getting into. I knew full well about the witcher having nudity in it when i got it. I can expect that if it has nudity and it also has controversial subjects (which is the whole point), then there's a chance that there might be a rape scene in the witcher 3. I don't know. I doubt it, but I don't predict it'll bring up memories of when i was abused as a child. And, if it does, i'll be OK with it, because I chose to buy it and play it, knowing full well that i may very well face such content in there. Do i expect some sort of trigger warning? No, that's what ESRB and the like are for. Plus, the game's got a reputation. It's like how Fifty Shades is pretty much about rape, from what i'm told. It's definitely about sex. I'm not expecting a trigger warning for the obvious. I don't expect soldiers to watch war movies.