Atlus to revise two "homophobic" scenes for Persona 5 Royal's western release

The Catboy · Feb 23, 2020

FGFlann said:
It's commonly referred to as self-censorship. As I said, there are varying degrees of severity and people tend to take it as affront when it infringes upon liberty. General politeness is common and we all practice it every day. Censorship is not good or bad in that respect, it's important to social cohesion because we are not always rational, unfortunately.

I can see where censorship like something like 4Kids level being an actual concern here and I would agree that there are points when something can go too far and become an issue. My bad for budding in, I am still on the actual topic of Persona 5 Royal and not whatever you two had going on.

FGFlann · Feb 23, 2020

Lilith Valentine said:
I can see where censorship like something like 4Kids level being an actual concern here and I would agree that there are points when something can go too far and become an issue. My bad for budding in, I am still on the actual topic of Persona 5 Royal and not whatever you two had going on.

No harm done. I'm just here to talk. I don't mind explaining myself as long we are... polite.

FAST6191 · Feb 23, 2020

Lilith Valentine said:
They revised a homophobic scene and that's literally all they did, there's nothing deeper to this,

Were the scenes in question homophobic? If so then how is that? As a general surface reading none of it was "ew look at those filthy fucking gays", "urgh that fudge packing lifestyle is just wrong on all the levels" or anything of that nature, and even then I would wonder if there was a greater context.

If there is then nothing wrong and they in turn bent the knee to people looking to be offended at whatever they can then that would be wrong from where I sit.

The Catboy · Feb 23, 2020

FAST6191 said:
Were the scenes in question homophobic? If so then how is that? As a general surface reading none of it was "ew look at those filthy fucking gays", "urgh that fudge packing lifestyle is just wrong on all the levels" or anything of that nature, and even then I would wonder if there was a greater context.

If there is then nothing wrong and they in turn bent the knee to people looking to be offended at whatever they can then that would be wrong from where I sit.

The implication that gay men are sexual predators is based on a homophobic stereotype of gay men. This isn't to be said that gay men can't be predictors but the scene itself also goes the extra mile to make them overly flamboyant on top of being sexual predators. Even within context, the scene is using homophobic stereotypes about gay men.

FAST6191 · Feb 23, 2020

Lilith Valentine said:
The implication that gay men are sexual predators is based on a homophobic stereotype of gay men. This isn't to be said that gay men can't be predictors but the scene itself also goes the extra mile to make them overly flamboyant on top of being sexual predators. Even within context, the scene is using homophobic stereotypes about gay men.

From where I sit that is reaching so hard it might be better served in a type of rather specialist gay porn video.
Are they predators, or exhibiting predatory behaviour as the case may be, or was that just aggressive move making? Moreover does the beach thing not contrast rather nicely with the scenes around it wherein some people are travelling in a pack putting the moves on some people who generally appear less than receptive?
Was that overly flamboyant/camp? That kind of behaviour in some of the gay people I have met in life would have me wondering if they were depressed as it is so muted. Plenty of others don't go there and some would consider that level to be an aspirational one for them but otherwise find themselves playing it down.
Is it a homophobic stereotype employed in this or just a stereotype? How do I tell them apart?

In many of these sorts of scenarios I get the impression that the end goal for people screeching at makers of works like this is that the gays (or insert whatever other group manages to win a spot on the unfairly maligned at some point in history list) need appear like any normal man on the street, with some going one more and wanting them to have no flaws/weaknesses/adversities to overcome and that just makes for awful characters.

The Catboy · Feb 23, 2020

FAST6191 said:
From where I sit that is reaching so hard it might be better served in a type of rather specialist gay porn video.
Are they predators, or exhibiting predatory behaviour as the case may be, or was that just aggressive move making? Moreover does the beach thing not contrast rather nicely with the scenes around it wherein some people are travelling in a pack putting the moves on some people who generally appear less than receptive?
Was that overly flamboyant/camp? That kind of behaviour in some of the gay people I have met in life would have me wondering if they were depressed as it is so muted. Plenty of others don't go there and some would consider that level to be an aspirational one for them but otherwise find themselves playing it down.
Is it a homophobic stereotype employed in this or just a stereotype? How do I tell them apart?

In many of these sorts of scenarios I get the impression that the end goal for people screeching at makers of works like this is that the gays (or insert whatever other group manages to win a spot on the unfairly maligned at some point in history list) need appear like any normal man on the street, with some going one more and wanting them to have no flaws/weaknesses/adversities to overcome and that just makes for awful characters.

Using commonly used stereotypes about gay men is homophobic. Even if you want to argue that maybe they were just being aggressively forward, it was still unwelcome and became predatory when they literally yelled "get em!" implying that they were going to chase these two to strip them. There is a fine line here but it's crossed when it becomes apparent that the other party isn't welcoming your advances and leaves. Once you go past that into the territory of continuing to advance on them or chasing them, that becomes predatory.
It's not an issue of them being overly flamboyant but it's in conjunction with them being rapey as well. It plays into the stereotype that gay men (especially overly flamboyant gay men) are rapey and always make unwelcome advances. In this case, being flamboyant was used in the same practice as homophobic stereotyping in the past.
Honestly, why would that be an issue? Why not just make an average Joe who happens to be gay? They can have flaws, but that flaw doesn't always have to be rapey.

FGFlann · Feb 23, 2020

I'm willing to concede that Beefy Trendsetter and Scruffy Romantic appear a bit rapey. The beach scene isn't even the prime example of this as the previous encounter where they drag Ryuji off for a night on the town is worse. It is played for laughs however and Ryuji remains unmolested after both encounters. Their actions also aren't severe enough to play into Persona 5's overall theme of adults abusing their power.

The problem comes when we make the leap in logic to homophobia, because ultimately the jokes are made at Ryuji's expense, to punish him for his misdeeds, and not as a critical portrayal of Beefy Trendsetter and Scruffy Romantic.

We as the player don't know these characters, and we are given no indication that their behaviour is typical of any identity group outside of the common stereotypical mannerisms. If we make no assumptions about their intent, and we observe that there are no negative consequences to their flamboyance and flirting, we can draw the conclusion that they are actually harmless and just looking to have fun. Ryuji's reactions to them are over the top but he doesn't actually display any signs of trauma from either encounter, nor does he mistreat Beefy Trendsetter and Scruffy Romantic in any manner.

The intent of the scene is to punish Ryuji and Joker for their behaviour on the beach, lavishing their own unwanted attention on girls who have no interest in being approached by them. We recognize this as karma and that is the punchline. The nature of homosexuality itself is never addressed and in this case is only inferred by aggrieved parties.

UltraDolphinRevolution · Feb 23, 2020

There is a difference between making a whole mode around how cruel Russians are (see Company of Heroes 2) and a random NPC that's meant as a light-hearted joke. It's totally fine to complain but this "phobic" nonsense is really annoying.
RT has also established "Russophobic" and let me introduce two more: depicting a woman who goes after rich men is now "femophobic" and men going after young women is "male-o-phobic".

FAST6191 · Feb 23, 2020

Lilith Valentine said:
Using commonly used stereotypes about gay men is homophobic. Even if you want to argue that maybe they were just being aggressively forward, it was still unwelcome and became predatory when they literally yelled "get em!" implying that they were going to chase these two to strip them. There is a fine line here but it's crossed when it becomes apparent that the other party isn't welcoming your advances and leaves. Once you go past that into the territory of continuing to advance on them or chasing them, that becomes predatory.
It's not an issue of them being overly flamboyant but it's in conjunction with them being rapey as well. It plays into the stereotype that gay men (especially overly flamboyant gay men) are rapey and always make unwelcome advances. In this case, being flamboyant was used in the same practice as homophobic stereotyping in the past.
Honestly, why would that be an issue? Why not just make an average Joe who happens to be gay? They can have flaws, but that flaw doesn't always have to be rapey.

Is a stereotype not inherently common? Though I suppose it could have fallen out of favour... does that mean the 40s stereotypes are available for use? That said I can't get to using a stereotype is of itself an act of prejudiced or discrimination, or is that just something that applies to the gays and a few other anointed groups?
This predatory line still seems hazy to me, or at least a whole lot of things would fall under that when others tell me playing hard to get/being pursued is something they care to experience.
Even if I accept the rapey premise (I really don't) so a stereotype exists... once one has been coined is it then to be verboten.

You can make an average Joe who likes to touch penis if you want, my issue was that as things get stripped away by those inclined to screech about things that is all you are going to end up with and that is boring. It is the same end result as the tokenism, just from the other direction. Generally if a character has a trait in a story it ought to mean something lest it be extraneous fluff and ignored.

The Catboy · Feb 23, 2020

FAST6191 said:
Is a stereotype not inherently common? Though I suppose it could have fallen out of favour... does that mean the 40s stereotypes are available for use? That said I can't get to using a stereotype is of itself an act of prejudiced or discrimination, or is that just something that applies to the gays and a few other anointed groups?
This predatory line still seems hazy to me, or at least a whole lot of things would fall under that when others tell me playing hard to get/being pursued is something they care to experience.
Even if I accept the rapey premise (I really don't) so a stereotype exists... once one has been coined is it then to be verboten.

You can make an average Joe who likes to touch penis if you want, my issue was that as things get stripped away by those inclined to screech about things that is all you are going to end up with and that is boring. It is the same end result as the tokenism, just from the other direction. Generally if a character has a trait in a story it ought to mean something lest it be extraneous fluff and ignored.

The stereotype that gay men (or really the LGBT+ as a whole) are predatory is still a very commonly used stereotype and trope in media and often commonly brought up by anti-LGBT+ people. There are several fake movements that came out of 4Chan like "clovergender" and "pedosexual" that were literally made around the idea that LGBT+ people were pedophiles and predators. Stereotypes are often used as justification for acts of prejudice or are based on prejudice at their core and doesn't just apply to one group of people.
I am not going to continue with you because it seems you are just going to be deliberately obtuse.

FAST6191 · Feb 23, 2020

Lilith Valentine said:
The stereotype that gay men (or really the LGBT+ as a whole) are predatory is still a very commonly used stereotype and trope in media and often commonly brought up by anti-LGBT+ people. There are several fake movements that came out of 4Chan like "clovergender" and "pedosexual" that were literally made around the idea that LGBT+ people were pedophiles and predators. Stereotypes are often used as justification for acts of prejudice or are based on prejudice at their core and doesn't just apply to one group of people.
I am not going to continue with you because it seems you are just going to be deliberately obtuse.

I do try to argue in good faith and I am genuinely still puzzled, or at least lack logic by which I can +1 a "ban this sick filth" for these scenes.
Because a stereotype was used means it gets banned seems just as utterly devoid of sense as... if 4chan are your boogeymen as opposed to just trolls then the OK hand symbol thing they had a hand in a while back. Don't give your enemies any power if you can help it and all that.

Not that I see how this is particularly degrading, inaccurate, malice driven or otherwise to warrant a change, hard though it may be for me to normally OK them. Now if you say it is all of the gay alphabet soup crowd I am off to find some predatory lesbian or actually some predatory asexual stories.

KingVamp · Feb 23, 2020

I just wonder if they would have changed this scene, if it was literally the same thing, but instead they were running away form girls.

FGFlann · Feb 23, 2020

KingVamp said:
I just wonder if they would have changed this scene, if it was literally the same thing, but instead they were running away form girls.

In order for the joke to function the duo has to be undesirable to the main characters. A pair of normal girls isn't going to cut it because it plays directly into Ryuji's desires and personality. There has to be something about them that repulses or scares him, and in all likelihood that character trait would generate a similar reaction in people who consider it a protected characteristic.

KingVamp · Feb 23, 2020

FGFlann said:
In order for the joke to function the duo has to be undesirable to the main characters. A pair of normal girls isn't going to cut it because it plays directly into Ryuji's desires and personality. There has to be something about them that repulses or scares him, and in all likelihood that character trait would generate a similar reaction in people who consider it a protected characteristic.

Of course I wasn't talking about normal girls. Unless you think stalkish girls are normal. lol

FGFlann · Feb 23, 2020

KingVamp said:
Of course I wasn't talking about normal girls. Unless you think stalkish girls are normal. lol

Yeah I get the idea.

But say if it was a pair of fat girls you're going to get the fat acceptance movement upset, so it's entirely possible. Maybe you could get away with a couple of nice yandere girls, I don't think anyone will go to bat for them.

FAST6191 · Feb 23, 2020

FGFlann said:
Yeah I get the idea. But say if it was a pair of fat girls you're going to get the fat acceptance movement upset, so it's entirely possible. Maybe you could get away with a couple of nice yandere girls, I don't think anyone will go to bat for them.

You mean not all women and perfect and loving and sweet? What a woman hating misogynist you are.
Or maybe you can't portray a woman as crazy (or hidden crazy) for fear that someone that is crazy sees it and copies it or something.

FGFlann · Feb 23, 2020

Women are the most vindictive creatures on the planet tbh.

FAST6191 · Feb 23, 2020

You are really not doing yourself any favours in this one. Is this one of those found the MGTOW moments?

The only thing you can think is all women are perfect, just that are some are more perfect than others.

That said while I have met any number of women that aspire to elevate vindictiveness to a high art form they tend to also have a modicum of social sense and thus they are not the worst.
That job belongs to 3 year olds.

FGFlann · Feb 23, 2020

I did try to go my own way but my wife wouldn't let me.

Back on topic though, it doesn't really need saying because it's so obvious, but I will anyway: No matter what you do, you can't please everyone.

Seliph · Feb 23, 2020

Surprised that people are mad about the revision of two scenes that depict harmful and reductive stereotypes of homosexual men. If anything, I'd expect people to be glad. Instead, people are slinging the word SJW around left and right and acting as if it's a personal attack on them and that this instance of censorship ruins the integrity of the game. First of all, is social justice a bad thing? Is it wrong for Atlus to change a scene so that it doesn't encourage homophobic stereotypes? Second of all, it's barely 4 minutes' worth of content, and not everyone's gonna see it anyways. It's not like your world's going to collapse because two scenes have been edited. Grow up.

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife

Techromancer

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife

Techromancer

Haaah-hahahaha!

Well-Known Member

Haaah-hahahaha!

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

Best Girl ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum