'Pedophilic undertones' doesn't relate to 'trashy' or 'harem', even if you read the anime that way. In fact, it can be extremely interesting to see something which is so rarely portrayed or discussed in fiction, even fiction for adults.
The reality of child abuse is neither solved nor rebuked by depictions or explorations of psychology in adult fiction.
I don't even know what this show is, but I can guarantee you any pedo-related stuff in there is highly unlikely to be for the purpose of "depictions or explorations of psychology".
Come on, don't try to kid me. It's there for the same reason all the other seinen anime have a ton of borderline softcore porn tropes in them.
In this case, it's not; but even if it were, does that limit the ability of a text to explore interesting themes? Why?
I'd recommend reading deeper into the scholarly literature of sexual themes in anime and manga before assuming that fans necessarily interpret 'children' into the text. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639806
>if you could even call the writing of some guy with no credentials that
The researcher I'm quoting (who's by far not alone on writing this topic in his field) is Patrick Galbraith, a researcher and associate professor of cultural anthropology at Senshu University in Tokyo.
I think anyone deeply familiar with anime knows the harem tropes and sexual-comedy setups that Jobless Reincarnation uses as the basis of their story.
The difference is that Jobless Reincarnation plays out these sexual situations out to the full extend of their drama (ex: Paul Grayrat is caught making a child with the hot maid, there's multiple episodes of fallout because of this as Paul and Zenith, his first wife, have arguments over this).
I'm not sure if this is a teaching moment for Rudy (the main character) though, as it becomes clear that the entirety of the Grayrat line is full of sexual deviants and even some inbreeding.
--------
Doing the sexy time with the hot maid is... I mean.... its a trope. Its normally a comedy routine. But its played straight here.
Stealing the panties the main character's 40+ year old hot teacher (who is from the demon continent so she looks like only a teenager) is... a comedy trope in anime. (Ie: Panty stealing is all over Konosuba, a comedy anime). But its completely different when its played out straight and in a dramatic anime.
Being open with what fetishes you're cool with, and which ones make you squeemish is part of growing up. I can comfortably say that the stuff Jobless Reincarnation takes as core plot points are uncomfortable to me / "squicky" and unsatisfying sources of drama for me. And due to their long history as a comedy trope in older anime, its difficult for me to take it seriously.
Perhaps your argument is that the "point" is to take these adultery scenes more seriously and think deeply about them and the characters they affect. Except I already know that adultery is wrong, that panty stealing is wrong and I don't have any plans to do either.
So as a source of Drama, my overall confusion with this show is "Why are you dramatizing porn/harem/eroge plots?".
Uh no. Its a stupid plot for stupid porn-level writing setup. I don't consider it a source of drama at all. Personally anyway. I see that a lot of other people seem to like it so I don't want to hate on it too much or cause undo harm to your opinions or whatever. But... its really hard for me to take the eroge/hentai level plots seriously in Jobless Reincarnation. That's all.
Even if I 100% recognize that the author works very hard to set up these situations and think out the fallout and drama in a reasonably "realistic" way (or at least, all the characters acting like they should while still qualifying for the trope). And I think that's the part a lot of people like: the deep thought the author put into this work. Thinking deeply about how all these characters would act in the face of these sexually deviant actions.
I don't know why I even bothered to try to push back, beyond the fact that these kind of "philosophers" plague the anime community. The pattern is very predictable. Tons and tons of ink spilled to try to explain why they're not a pedophile while not doing anything more than distracting from the original point and dithering endlessly. And nobody wants to push back because of it, so they take silence as complicit assent.
Even if they were a 'cult of sexuality' - what exactly is the harm here? I'm always struck by how, even on HN, there is a current of moral busybodies who, often without understanding the topic or subculture, deem certain activities outside the scope of toleration - even those activities which do not cause harm. The justification is usually rather weak too if not backed up by some religious principles.
The sibling comment refers to "escapism" (as though this is always a bad thing, we should chuck out fantasy and most music too) and "infantile behavior" (citation needed, even if this is a thing we should not tolerate).
> Even if they were a 'cult of sexuality' - what exactly is the harm here?
Because advertising a fetish in public is considered unacceptable by most people?
Shouldn't that be obvious to them? If they go around in public consciously trying to make other people uncomfortable, do you seriously expect them to not get angry about that?
Again, I can't see those things as necessarily bad in any kind of global sense that applies to everyone, unless you claim to know what's best for everyone. Escapism might be a problem if you're neglecting your duties as a parent, for example. Infantile behavior might be a problem if you're expecting to be constantly helped in the workplace. But those are individual problems caused by underlying issues.
It's similar to gaming. You could say solo gaming reinforces escapism far more than meeting of like minded people in a furry community. But that doesn't mean gaming is bad - it's only bad to the degree that this escapism causes problems in the gamer's life.
"Exposed to furries"? Come on. It's a subculture like any other, but one which (for fairly stupid reasons in my opinion) faces bullying and harassment. Where do you draw the line between a "social contagion" and a quirky subculture? Are tabletop RPGs a social contagion? What about Ham radio enthusiasts?
4chan has an extensive list of rules; only the /b/ (Random) board is exempt from most of them - with the caveat, they say, that the moderators of that board are also exempt from abiding by the rules of who to ban and for what reason.
Even on /b/, doxxing, calls to raid other boards, complaining about the moderators/admins, submitting false post reports, impersonating admins, etc. is banned. On all other boards, even seemingly innocuous things like anthropomorphic (furry) imagery or even posting images of characters from the show My Little Pony (other than in the /mlp/ and /b/ boards) is disallowed.
Porn is disallowed on the majority of boards, and even risque images are sometimes removed; the rules are enforced to the degree where a SFW board (e.g. /jp/) can have threads about Japanese porn actresses, but you're not even allowed to post a nude.
4chan is quite heavily moderated and there is a whole team of janitors and moderators for all boards that respond to reports behind the scenes; you only rarely see them chime in like dang does on HN. For a while, even "share a screenshot of your desktop" threads were routinely being removed from the /g/ (Technology) board by janitors.
As for Gab, I recall they even ban softcore/suggestive pornography or imagery. It's certainly not the wild west just because its users are more sympathetic to the first amendment.
There are citations both for and against falsificationism at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[0]; quoting:
"Popper’s demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science (Hansson 2006) and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific (Agassi 1991; Mahner 2007, 518–519). Strictly speaking, his criterion excludes the possibility that there can be a pseudoscientific claim that is refutable. According to Larry Laudan (1983, 121), it “has the untoward consequence of countenancing as ‘scientific’ every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions”"
From the citation on Hansson, the abstract[1] reads:
"...Furthermore, an empirical study of falsification in science is reported, based on the 70 scientific contributions that were published as articles in Nature in 2000. Only one of these articles conformed to the falsificationist recipe for successful science, namely the falsification of a hypothesis that is more accessible to falsification than to verification."
Popper's criterion in a vacuum could seem to be exclusionary, but his philosophy of science involves his underrated idea of evolutionary epistemology. That all theories, seemingly pseudoscientific and the rest, compete to explain something, testable or not. Explanation is the most fundamental aspect, the rival statements compete to solve some problem in terms of how and why.
>It's their country. You don't get to feel "bullied" for them not wanting foreigners there.
Why shouldn't I? You don't get to dictate how I "get" to feel. The very idea of racism and xenophobia is fundamentally offensive to me. As with the Amazon native population, I would not approve if they didn't let me in by virtue of some immutable attribute of mine such as my appearance.
So long as you make an effort to learn someone's culture, I don't think there's any justifictaion to exclude someone on the basis of the brute facts of their body or upbringing. Actions ought to matter far more.
I'm not aware of any moral theory that has been justified in academia or elsewhere which prescribes that such discrimination is permissible. This also is evidenced by the fact that many Japanese people claim to abhor racism while simultaneously practicing it against sections of their own population and other populations.
>Why shouldn't I? You don't get to dictate how I "get" to feel.
No, but logic and society and experiences gets to dictate (even if in a slightly fuzzy what) what makes sense to feel.
Otherwise, feelings are like a*holes. Everybody has one.
>So long as you make an effort to learn someone's culture, I don't think there's any justifictaion to exclude someone on the basis of the brute facts of their body or upbringing. Actions ought to matter far more.
They don't want people merely having "made an effort to learn their culture" to immigrate in their country in any great numbers. They prefer people having grown into their culture - that is, their own people.
It's through this organic process (as opposed to some bro watching anime and watching documentaries about sushi and samurai swords who feels they've "made an effort to learn the culture") that they preserve their culture, their social cohesion, their customs, their safety, and other such aspects.
>as opposed to some bro watching anime and watching documentaries about sushi and samurai swords who feels they've "made an effort to learn the culture"
You've used this strawman previously in this thread; perhaps it would be better if you elucidated what elements of culture you're actually referring to.
>They don't want people merely having "made an effort to learn their culture" to immigrate in their country in any great numbers.
Who is "they"? I feel like you're ascribing very specific opinions to people who I suspect would be perfectly happy with law-abiding immigrants who don't hold parties at 3 a.m.
>They prefer people having grown into their culture - that is, their own people.
Is this even true? And to what degree? For example, there are cases of non-ethnically Japanese people who were born and raised in Japan, but still face challenges with discrimination, whereas immigrants of Japanese ancestry from America only seem to face issues with language. There's even a politician who immigrated to Japan and was elected by Japanese people: https://www.japan-zone.com/modern/tsurunen_marutei.shtml - in what way was someone who grew up in Japan preferred?
You may argue that these are minor examples and exceptions, but even one example is enough to show that these feelings are not based on logic or probability, but on mere gut feeling when one encounters someone different.
Cultural assimilation can happen to varying degrees and varying time frames with mixed results; the degree to which it is successful is also dependent on how accomodating or welcoming that particular culture is.
Maybe you should ask the Native American tribes who died of smallpox what “scientific” basis there is for being afraid of foreigners?
I know you are going to say that’s not the case in the modern world, but you need to at least understand there are very concrete reasons why xenophobia evolved, and why it’s a natural reaction. Some might not be relevant in the modern world, but I’d argue there’s a lot of complexity that we might not understand.
For example, there are some extremely intolerant immigrants to Europe right now, 100% of whom in London polled as wanting homosexuality criminalised.
Should everyone be 100% accepting of this because they are foreigners? Is xenophobia justified in this case in your opinion?
Xenophobia is a fear or distrust of foreigners. You can accept, and work to integrate, foreigners into your society while rejecting bad ideas. That’s the basis of modern multicultural democracies.
Xenophobia is a content-less word, made to be sounding like a medical condition, to justify bossing people around based on what they want or do not want in their country.
It is, of course, a white invention, as we feel morally superior enough to do all the bossing around. Let's call it the "white man's burden" to show those people how it should be done.
>("I like multiculturalism, as long as every country has the same cultural mindset as mine").
To some degree, this isn't a bad idea. For example, I abhor female genital mulitaliton (FGM) and I don't think it's particularly wrong to say that regardless of it being the "culture" of some people, it shouldn't be done.
If I weren't a moral nihilist, I certainly wouldn't be a moral relativist.
People who generally oppose multiculturalism often assume their ideological opponent is an ardent adherent to cultural relativism, with their definition of cultural relativism being a very uncharitable one: i.e., “no culture is better than another, and it’s not okay to say something another culture does is bad.”
Cultural relativism is more useful in understanding why some people from different cultures behave the way they do, and examining if wither rejection of that behavior is based on a logical, beneficial value, or whether it’s based on the natural impulse to reject something foreign. Mistaken beliefs prevent cultural progress. Beliefs should be open to challenge.
The reality of child abuse is neither solved nor rebuked by depictions or explorations of psychology in adult fiction.