Quote Originally Posted by Lunaxia View Post
Yeah, it does, though.
No, it doesn't!

Saying that jokes about things is the same as minimizing or downplaying the severity of the subject matter would imply that jokes have a magical way of changing how people engage with and understand the subject matter. It's a drastic and biased oversimplification of how people engage with and address comedy that relates to a given subject, one that is contingent exclusively on misrepresenting the psychological and sociological aspects of humor in a way that validates the biases of those offended.

If it truly had this effect, then people like myself and others who are vehemently against sexual harassment, wouldn't find Haurchefant funny, nor would we defend his initial incarnation, and neither the West nor Japanese certainly would continue to perpetuate these specific literary devices in their media and media culture.

Yeah, it is.
It's not.

I'd suggest you actually pick up a psychology and sociology textbook, or do proper research into the consensus behind media effects on behavior, attitudes, and perceptions. You're going to find a lot of people claiming that there's an effect, citing correlational and largely anecdotal evidence, but you'll an almost equally robust set of papers critiquing this, and also find that the consensus is largely unmoved because none of these are able to outline or demonstrate causation.

The way fiction is perceived and how it affects people is not simple. It, like fiction, is complex and highly nuanced, with the only real standard is that things depicted in fiction do not 'normalize' things that would be considered harmful or problematic outside that context. You'd be surprised how often subjective biases override objective judgement in this regard.

The clueless don't, though, and the more unsavory sort don't have any qualms about it to begin with. They just see it green lit as something they can get away with.
People can be really dumb and completely devoid of media literacy, but inferences into media depictions and how it affects people has consistently failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between continued exposure and promulgation of these things. People often claim to find inferences, but they can't demonstrate anything more than minor correlations grounded by a selection effect.

The fact that people are able to differentiate and compartmentalize, at the conceptual level, something that is hypothetical, as opposed to merely fictitious and inconsequential is proof of this lack of an effect.

It always comes down to this back-and-forth with debates like this.
Even with the way many studios or media companies have radically changed their approaches to how controversial material can be depicted or marketed, the rates of abuse and all of these other harms these measures seek to address have never actually gone down. In fact they may have increased, but that alone isn't evidence of anything.

Like what? Like who?
-South Park
-Family Guy
-American Dad
-Big Mouth
-F-Is-For-Family
-Brickleberry
I can name more TV shows which feature perverts who behave just like Haurchefant, but that would make this already-long post that much longer. These shows are marketed by their raunchy comedy, and of course, it's going to break into territory that will make people uncomfortable. I'm not even going to touch up on JP content. That'd be cheating lol

You weren't even there, lol. Digging up an old post circa. 2015 that suits your narrative isn't "research" or proof of understanding of the matter.
I don't have to have been there, literally all of the evidence is already there from that time. It's not a matter of picking stuff that 'suits my narrative', it's about quoting a representative from Square Enix themselves who admitted fault and apologized. You casually casting all of that aside just to disagree with me on this is extremely petty.

Imagine trying to pretend that there are a "substantial" number of people who care about the translation differences while claiming the only people who like Haurchefant are a bunch of supporters on reddit.
There are. People want to have a quality experience that's consistent with the original vision of the game and not feel like SE is behaving like 4kids Lite, where all the characters have different names and plotlines are significantly changed to account for 'cultural differences'.

They committed to keeping the cutscenes largely in line with each other, while also continuing to state the importance of localisation and the reasons why they do it and why they continue to do it.
They also said that any further incarnations of him would be consistent with his canonical characterization, so that way there's one true Haurchefant. For things like side media or merchandise or events. All he wanted to do is ride the WoL like a pony...
They also admitted that changing him was wrong, and that they would have done things a lot differently given the severity of the blowback from fans and a general sense of disappointment in how they handled it. I admit, I wouldn't have been as concerned if the EN localization of Haurchefant was consistent across all regions, because it meant that one region wasn't getting something that another region was, and vice versa. If the Japanese script signed off on and integrated the changes, then it would have been through their internal processes to do so.

We're just pulling things out of the air now, are we?
Nope. It would just make sense, wouldn't it? I've also checked, his JP characterization is generally more well-liked by Japanese fans than the EN is, whereas in the EN there's this mixed-reaction with political implications. Over in JP he's literally just a character people like. There are stickers in LINE where he's depicted shirtless, and I think those are hilarious.

You can keep on pretending that media exists in a vacuum apart from general society all you like, but no one else is.
It's not about media 'existing in a vacuum', it's about actually knowing and understanding the effects. If you had been paying attention to anything, and didn't object to factual statements about the game being a pure work of fiction, you'd know better.

Just because bad people gravitate towards things which may, at a glance, glorify bad things doesn't mean it has a reinforcing or 'normalization' effect on those antisocial beliefs or attitudes. No evidence exists to conclusively demonstrate that, contrary to what people claim, and as stated previously, the winding down of those depictions will not make those people any less likely to 'change' or adjust these attitudes.

??? Haurchefant was 100% serious.
Maybe in some aspects. He functions as a supporting role and is helpful to the WoL either way, just in one he feels more like a proper character whose trope has function, but as a character, he was not intended to be taken 100% seriously. Learn the difference between a fictional character as a literary device and an actual personality, and how those concepts intertwine based on mood, tone, and broader context, I guess.

I think you have some personal issues to maybe work on if someone slobbering over you makes you more comfortable than friendly courtesy.
Maybe unwarranted emotionally-charged 'bonds' just aren't all that appealing, and maybe much of the infatuation with his EN iteration is motivated by something else? I'm not going ton assume things, but that's just my evaluation. Most of why I didn't like him was because it felt wrong, like he wasn't supposed to be this way.

Anyway, as funny as this was and as much as I admire your continued audacity to speak on subjects you have absolutely no understanding of or were even around for, I'm out.
I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the actual effects of media and not just the biased takes of what political commentators say. Your entire rhetoric reeks of something uniquely foul, and that foulness is shared by people like Dworkin and Sarkeesian, but also more sinister forces, like conservative pundits such as Richard Nixon. Do with that as you will, you might learn something!