Would you find early DB Roshi's gag as funny?

[Symbiote]

I didn’t mind it.

 

[Spiral-Force]

Well, I'd say there's a big difference between portraying bloody fights and sexual harassment... Since the first is already trivialized to a matter ppl just say "I'll kill that son of a bitch" in a overly funny way... Most ppl wouldn't or at least shouldn't laugh at someone jokingly saying "damn, I'll rape that bitch"... Since sexual harassment fits in another field compared to killing or spanking in a fight, which is already trivial enough, even more so in cinemas, that ppl use it continuously. Ppl would laugh at every bloody scene in the Pulp Fiction movie, for instance... when the rape scene was portrayed, although in a comedic sense, the reaction of awakwardness and hesitation to react would be bigger, at least in the 3x I went to the movies watch the it. Why they're held in different regards is an interesting question, but my bet would be that killing and beating up to a pulp is something that could be more easily done in an act of anger or for fair reasons... While abusing someone sexually isn't seen as a form of punishment, as it speaks to someone's inner desires and pervertions, plus it more specifically targets a specific group.

I'm not necessarily saying how ppl should take it or that they shouldn't enjoy it, ppl will take it as they will. I'm saying that me, personally, don't find them funny and find them more cringe nowadays compared to before, looking at things differently than my kid and teen self would. It's not a generalized behavior or a pattern ppl should follow, they may take the scene as they were intended for, for all I care.

It seems that you have not recognised the overarching point that was made. In addition, your take on violence suggests that you partake in hive-mind thinking.

Where both factors (violence and perverted behaviour) correlate is that they are things that are largely looked down on in society (note: there are nuances like combat sports and roleplay, but let's focus on normal life to keep things relevant), but people can take satisfaction in within fictional content.

What you should take into account is that there are people that would use your argument to complain about violence, yet you enjoy such content. You may be able to get away with that logic in a casual setting where you're just bouncing ideas around with your buddies, but not in this case.

Generally, characters often react to Roshi's perverted ways in either a confused, 'tut tut tut', or facepalm type of manner. So it's not like what he's doing is actively encouraged. On top of that, those reactions add to the comedy element.

 

[ahill1]

It seems that you have not recognised the overarching point that was made. In addition, your take on violence suggests that you partake in hive-mind thinking.

Where both factors (violence and perverted behaviour) correlate is that they are things that are largely looked down on in society (note: there are nuances like combat sports and roleplay, but let's focus on normal life to keep things relevant), but people can take satisfaction in within fictional content.

What you should take into account is that there are people that would use your argument to complain about violence, yet you enjoy such content. You may be able to get away with that logic in a casual setting where you're just bouncing ideas around with your buddies, but not in this case.

Generally, characters often react to Roshi's perverted ways in either a confused, 'tut tut tut', or facepalm type of manner. So it's not like what he's doing is actively encouraged. On top of that, those reactions add to the comedy element.

I did recognize it, only I pointed out there're differing ways of entertainment, one that seems more acceptable, one that does not.

Yeah, but like I've pointed out, violence is way more trivialized in the context of jokes and entertainment. Again, you make jokes about killing someone... You don't make jokes about raping someone. While both are looked down in terms of literal occurrences, they don't carry similar connotations once they're portrayed in a jokingly way.

There would be ppl, and there sure have... That doesn't mean it still isn't more acceptable, generally, than sexual abuse or sexual assault jokes.

I'm aware they do not give him applause for his actions... But the scenes are still portrayed in a light sense and within a comedic tune, not carrying significant consequences to Roshi, like when he touched the butt of an Aeroplane attendant and pretended to be senile leading to the 22nd Budokai. I'm not saying you, or anyone else, should find problems with them. I'm saying that me, pereonally, do find them cringe and not funny.

 

[VampireWicked]

The job of entertainment media is to... entertain. For instance, someone could be stoked to see a bloody fight between two warriors in a film, while never thinking to replicate what they saw IRL.

Popular adult cartoons don't shy away from perverted stuff, so it seems that aspect of comedy still holds up these days amongst loads of people. With things like this, the way something is delivered takes precedence over the subject matter.

If someone isn't enjoying themselves, that's up to them. Though characterising grievance through a moral lens often comes across as selective outrage.

I oh so agree with this.
My question is would this still be asked if Bulma, Chi-chi, or Launch was the perv in DragonBall.
How much of a question is this towards the women who create, write, illustrate, any content the of a similar nature.

 

[Spiral-Force]

I did recognize it, only I pointed out there're differing ways of entertainment, one that seems more acceptable, one that does not.

Yeah, but like I've pointed out, violence is way more trivialized in the context of jokes and entertainment. Again, you make jokes about killing someone... You don't make jokes about raping someone. While both are looked down in terms of literal occurrences, they don't carry similar connotations once they're portrayed in a jokingly way.

There would be ppl, and there sure have... That doesn't mean it still isn't more acceptable, generally, than sexual abuse or sexual assault jokes.

I'm aware they do not give him applause for his actions... But the scenes are still portrayed in a light sense and within a comedic tune, not carrying significant consequences to Roshi, like when he touched the butt of an Aeroplane attendant and pretended to be senile leading to the 22nd Budokai. I'm not saying you, or anyone else, should find problems with them. I'm saying that me, pereonally, do find them cringe and not funny.

On a macro level, the main take-away is that getting a kick out of an entertainment piece does not inherently tie to IRL acceptance. On a micro level, different people may draw personal lines as to their tastes, but should be cautious not to get tangled in their own logic (or end up killing the mood).

Speaking of killing, the usage of this term has far more variance (see above). But the moment that term has any level of seriousness behind it -- whether in the form of a threat or execution -- then semantics go out of the window.

With a subject like this, spreading yourself too thin leads to a questionable stance quite quickly. Not all preferences are worth attempting to rationalise.

 

[ahill1]

On a macro level, the main take-away is that getting a kick out of an entertainment piece does not inherently tie to IRL acceptance. On a micro level, different people may draw personal lines as to their tastes, but should be cautious not to get tangled in their own logic (or end up killing the mood).

Speaking of killing, the usage of this term has far more variance (see above). But the moment that term has any level of seriousness behind it -- whether in the form of a threat or execution -- then semantics go out of the window.

With a subject like this, spreading yourself too thin leads to a questionable stance quite quickly. Not all preferences are worth attempting to rationalise.

It does not, but it's important, for some people, to know what they're fine joking with and what they're not. Some ppl are obviously more fine with playing around with some contents than others, and a general concept like killing, already so trivialized, is easier, for most, to joke around without it raising too many weird reactions. For example, I've friends who get a kick out of dark humor regarding racist jokes and memes. They don't operate like that IRL, but I still find it in bad taste and don't partake in those things since to me, some things shouldn't be made a joke because they shouldn't, to me, be trivialized, like joking with Jews, as another example. There's a line separating what joking with would seem acceptable on a reasonable level, and those things that making the issue into a comedic thing takes away from the way I'd like to look at such a thing.

Killing is also a more wide and general thing. Violence is used often in movies and ppl just get a kick out of it many times, like in the Devil's Death movies. It's more difficult to laugh at when the subject of the joke in that movie would be sexual abuse and sexual assault, speaking on a general level. Like I said, I think it may revolve around killing being a more general thing, and that it can be done for a number of reasons... while sexual harassment or other forms of sexual abuse speaks more to a pervert desire and can't be done under fair reasoning or with a legitimate, at least when having context analysed, like killing. Killing is a crime no matter what, but it may be rationalized depending on the situation... so it's easier to explore in ways it comes off as a joke most cases.

Spreading yourself too thin can be fine depending on the case. There're ppl who are more open to some kind of jokes and not to others... and this isn't hypocrisy either. If someone weren't open to homosexual jokes but were all in racist jokes, that'd be questionable. But in regards to killing and violence, and something which targets heavily a more specific group like sexual harassment, it's unerstandable why someone would cloud themselves to one but not the other.

 

[Spiral-Force]

It does not, but it's important, for some people, to know what they're fine joking with and what they're not. Some ppl are obviously more fine with playing around with some contents than others, and a general concept like killing, already so trivialized, is easier, for most, to joke around without it raising too many weird reactions. For example, I've friends who get a kick out of dark humor regarding racist jokes and memes. They don't operate like that IRL, but I still find it in bad taste and don't partake in those things since to me, some things shouldn't be made a joke because they shouldn't, to me, be trivialized, like joking with Jews, as another example. There's a line separating what joking with would seem acceptable on a reasonable level, and those things that making the issue into a comedic thing takes away from the way I'd like to look at such a thing.

Killing is also a more wide and general thing. Violence is used often in movies and ppl just get a kick out of it many times, like in the Devil's Death movies. It's more difficult to laugh at when the subject of the joke in that movie would be sexual abuse and sexual assault, speaking on a general level. Like I said, I think it may revolve around killing being a more general thing, and that it can be done for a number of reasons... while sexual harassment or other forms of sexual abuse speaks more to a pervert desire and can't be done under fair reasoning or with a legitimate, at least when having context analysed, like killing. Killing is a crime no matter what, but it may be rationalized depending on the situation... so it's easier to explore in ways it comes off as a joke most cases.

Spreading yourself too thin can be fine depending on the case. There're ppl who are more open to some kind of jokes and not to others... and this isn't hypocrisy either. If someone weren't open to homosexual jokes but were all in racist jokes, that'd be questionable. But in regards to killing and violence, and something which targets heavily a more specific group like sexual harassment, it's unerstandable why someone would cloud themselves to one but not the other.

Violent content was a reasonable comparison within the scope of the discussion because it sheds light on the difference in the state of mind of those that consume it via films and series, as opposed to say: a news piece or explicit documentary. Psychologically, the same applies to perverted comedy. If you understand that, then we can move on from this portion.

Within this talk, I never expressed interest in comparing which is more popular or well-received between the two categories. I'm looking at the bigger picture of things, highlighting how the logic maps out overall.

The interesting thing about entertainment is that you can love a character that committed acts that you'd despise if done by an actual person. A prime example of this would be genocidal villains like Frieza.

 

[FeatsofPower]

Different cultures and times view things differently. America has had a real awakening of certain things we used to think were appropriate but clearly are not, especially regarding women. Pedo jokes have always been very weird and Japan’s culture seems to really dive into this kind of comedy. Their age of consent is also much different. Pedo jokes are disgusting.

 

[ahill1]

Violent content was a reasonable comparison within the scope of the discussion because it sheds light on the difference in the state of mind of those that consume it via films and series, as opposed to say: a news piece or explicit documentary. Psychologically, the same applies to perverted comedy. If you understand that, then we can move on from this portion.

Within this talk, I never expressed interest in comparing which is more popular or well-received between the two categories. I'm looking at the bigger picture of things, highlighting how the logic maps out overall.

The interesting thing about entertainment is that you can love a character that committed acts that you'd despise if done by an actual person. A prime example of this would be genocidal villains like Frieza.

I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable comparison, I'm actually saying the comparison actually doesn't address the fact people can reasonably be bad or feel not alright with other kind of jokes in comedy llike sexual jokes... because the context surrounding the type of acceptability to those different aspects of not morally alright things from society and its depiction on cinema and fiction are different. Feel free to advance from this point, but while I understand the point, I don't buy that one type of reaction towards one would explain in the same parameters reactions to other contents. While violence content can be portrayed in the media with varying degrees of accpetability, the same leniency may not be found in sexual jokes, which ca be due to the potential for harm and stereotypes against a group in specifc.

Ok, but I actually find mapping out which seem more reasonable is valid enough, because it leads to a more in depth analysis, since not all kind of jokes and its depictions in comedy will have the same weight... specially speaking about ppl in general... and the thread isn't even meant to convey whether there's a right way to react to Roshi's gags in general, just to see how people, overall, would react to it, which is prone to change from person to person.

With Freeza, it also goes back to the violence and sexual jokes acceptabiity. Moreover, the portrayal of violence or ultra violence are many times stylized or fantastical, detaching it more from reality. It'd be different, for example, if someone made a Hitler impersonator on cartoons, with a simillar path going down and people started appreciating such character... because in this case the violence and character would be much more tied to previous and still ongoing social issues. The different standard applied for both may as well speak to the broader societal consensus about potenttial harm. The violence there from those characters, villains that we like are also within the narrative and plot devices for the own narrative and the moral dilemmas are often addressed through the story.

 

[Spiral-Force]

I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable comparison, I'm actually saying the comparison actually doesn't address the fact people can reasonably be bad or feel not alright with other kind of jokes in comedy llike sexual jokes... because the context surrounding the type of acceptability to those different aspects of not morally alright things from society and its depiction on cinema and fiction are different. Feel free to advance from this point, but while I understand the point, I don't buy that one type of reaction towards one would explain in the same parameters reactions to other contents. While violence content can be portrayed in the media with varying degrees of accpetability, the same leniency may not be found in sexual jokes, which ca be due to the potential for harm and stereotypes against a group in specifc.

Ok, but I actually find mapping out which seem more reasonable is valid enough, because it leads to a more in depth analysis, since not all kind of jokes and its depictions in comedy will have the same weight... specially speaking about ppl in general... and the thread isn't even meant to convey whether there's a right way to react to Roshi's gags in general, just to see how people, overall, would react to it, which is prone to change from person to person.

With Freeza, it also goes back to the violence and sexual jokes acceptabiity. Moreover, the portrayal of violence or ultra violence are many times stylized or fantastical, detaching it more from reality. It'd be different, for example, if someone made a Hitler impersonator on cartoons, with a simillar path going down and people started appreciating such character... because in this case the violence and character would be much more tied to previous and still ongoing social issues. The different standard applied for both may as well speak to the broader societal consensus about potenttial harm. The violence there from those characters, villains that we like are also within the narrative and plot devices for the own narrative and the moral dilemmas are often addressed through the story.

If someone finds a joke unpleasant due to the subject, then they're burdened by their morals bleeding into things. Imagine being at a birthday party then getting plagued by the thought of a starving african child not being able to enjoy the cake...

A person can feel however they want to feel; that does not make them exempt from criticising the narrative they're pushing. When your perspective can be flipped on you, then that's not a good sign.

If you want to go down that angle, Dragon Ball as a whole is detached from reality, not just Frieza.

Hitler's been joked about plenty. There's a movie that used his likeness that has been meme'd to death, and excerpts of his speeches have been mixed into songs on TikTok. Even Dragon Ball has mocked him.

It's also worth mentioning that rape jokes have been used quite significantly in culture. Notably through the trope of a buff guy taking advantage of a smaller dude. One of The Boondocks most famous gags is the joke about dropping soap in prison, which some reference when making light of actual sentences too.

 

[ahill1]

@Spiral-Force

Of course, but letting their morales bleed into their reaction doesn't necessarily make it inconsistent or full of holes. By that standard, everything could be made a joke of, which doesn't seem right. There're things you should look at the on-going social problem and its implications. It's not because some things are joke-able that this will naturally extend to every aspect of society. Feeling bad in a party at the hunger in Africa wouldn't be a proper example, but if someone within the party made a joke about them, like eating more than an African ate in their whole life while smiling, then that would be concernable.

Yeah, but I don't find the criticism strong enough here, in anyway, to put holes at anyone feeling that way to Roshi's jokes... them feeling cringey or not liking those moments is totally alright today, specially when one of those scenes portrayed Bulma as a 16 years old girl. Of course the matter is viewed differently among countries and among different periods in which such is made, but I'm specifically highlighting how I feel looking at them now with today's perspective.

It is detached from reality, but the brutality of Freeza is inherent to its character... and the morale surrounding such is discussed within the story, with consequences for Freeza of similar proportions. It's not like rape portrayal in stories would be cringy to me... Like Berserk, in the Golden Age, I didn't find them cringy or in any way censurable... because they were portaryed within the context of the plot, in a serious situation portraying the brutality of the ones comitting such acts, not in a light and off, more detached way. You can like Freeza because he's ruthless, which may portray that feeling of "cool", which speaks to the trivialized nature of violence... it'd be a lot stranger to like a character whose main trait is being a serial rapist, or look to a moment in which he enacts such and look at it as cool. He may still be likeable by the fanbase with other highlights he may have though. The ways scenes are portrayed make all the difference concerning their evil deeds, as well.

But not in a way that people would look at a Hitler impersonator and find him cool, like Freeza... which there can be ppl, but it's a weird feeling nonetheless. For instance, Halloween allows costumes of variable types in their parties, but people using real serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer as their costumes, which happened, was forbidden and there was a heavy backlash against people who did so... since even in a Haloween or joking contest, ppl can't simply expect to treat Jeffrey Dahmer as a joking charcater since he was real and highlights something very serious and disturbing which happened.

You'd also see more backlash against those type of jokes... whether you consider them fair or not, doesn't change that most ppl choose not going that way. And it's notable too that generally women are exempt from such jokes since even the ones who do such jokes consider the big social issue concerning female and rape... so joking with things regarding prison may be more passable by many because there's all that notion that a prisoner who has raped or commited serious crimes deserves of becoming a "bitch of others" in the cell, also highlighting the culture that prisoners are seen as almost no longer human, ppl totally tailored from their rights that even those jokes could be made. It's rare to see these jokes concerning other groups targets and female, specially.

 

[Spiral-Force]

Of course, but letting their morales bleed into their reaction doesn't necessarily make it inconsistent or full of holes. By that standard, everything could be made a joke of, which doesn't seem right. There're things you should look at the on-going social problem and its implications. It's not because some things are joke-able that this will naturally extend to every aspect of society. Feeling bad in a party at the hunger in Africa wouldn't be a proper example, but if someone within the party made a joke about them, like eating more than an African ate in their whole life while smiling, then that would be concernable.

You have not pinpointed how my logic is flawed.

A challenge for comics or writers that use comedic content is to deliver their material in a way that has humour at the forefront, no matter what the topic they choose is (which they like to have freedom over). Of course, there will be some super sensitive folks or hecklers, but they typically represent the (vocal) minority.

The African child example was used to put a troubled mind into perspective in a broad sense; it served its purpose within the context.

Yeah, but I don't find the criticism strong enough here, in anyway, to put holes at anyone feeling that way to Roshi's jokes... them feeling cringey or not liking those moments is totally alright today, specially when one of those scenes portrayed Bulma as a 16 years old girl. Of course the matter is viewed differently among countries and among different periods in which such is made, but I'm specifically highlighting how I feel looking at them now with today's perspective.

Explain what isn't strong.

Your preferences have been understood. The conversation has moved past that, clearly.

It is detached from reality, but the brutality of Freeza is inherent to its character... and the morale surrounding such is discussed within the story, with consequences for Freeza of similar proportions. It's not like rape portrayal in stories would be cringy to me... Like Berserk, in the Golden Age, I didn't find them cringy or in any way censurable... because they were portaryed within the context of the plot, in a serious situation portraying the brutality of the ones comitting such acts, not in a light and off, more detached way. You can like Freeza because he's ruthless, which may portray that feeling of "cool", which speaks to the trivialized nature of violence... it'd be a lot stranger to like a character whose main trait is being a serial rapist, or look to a moment in which he enacts such and look at it as cool. He may still be likeable by the fanbase with other highlights he may have though. The ways scenes are portrayed make all the difference concerning their evil deeds, as well.

Characters negatively affected by Frieza express sadness, pain, sorrow, etc. - it's not about the method he used to cause atrocities, but the fact that he did what he did, and the impact of it. That can't be downplayed, regardless of whichever reason someone takes a liking to him for.

But not in a way that people would look at a Hitler impersonator and find him cool, like Freeza... which there can be ppl, but it's a weird feeling nonetheless. For instance, Halloween allows costumes of variable types in their parties, but people using real serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer as their costumes, which happened, was forbidden and there was a heavy backlash against people who did so... since even in a Haloween or joking contest, ppl can't simply expect to treat Jeffrey Dahmer as a joking charcater since he was real and highlights something very serious and disturbing which happened.

This doesn't apply to Roshi though. His perverted tendencies don't mimic a particular figure.

You'd also see more backlash against those type of jokes... whether you consider them fair or not, doesn't change that most ppl choose not going that way. And it's notable too that generally women are exempt from such jokes since even the ones who do such jokes consider the big social issue concerning female and rape... so joking with things regarding prison may be more passable by many because there's all that notion that a prisoner who has raped or commited serious crimes deserves of becoming a "bitch of others" in the cell, also highlighting the culture that prisoners are seen as almost no longer human, ppl totally tailored from their rights that even those jokes could be made. It's rare to see these jokes concerning other groups targets and female, specially.

Was simply just mentioning that it's still a recurring comedic angle. Comedy may take society into consideration, but ultimately it's about whether the material can get viewers to laugh. At elite levels, it's a sophisticated process, especially for those that like to push boundaries and take things to the next level.

 

[ahill1]

You have not pinpointed how my logic is flawed.

A challenge for comics or writers that use comedic content is to deliver their material in a way that has humour at the forefront, no matter what the topic they choose is (which they like to have freedom over). Of course, there will be some super sensitive folks or hecklers, but they typically represent the (vocal) minority.

The African child example was used to put a troubled mind into perspective in a broad sense; it served its purpose within the context.

I've gone in detail about how the comparison to ppl enjoying violence doesn't necessarily negate their rolling eyes to scenes portraying sexual harassment in a light way, and I've said one example in which a non tolerable issue irl doesn't mean other sensitive topics doesn't deserve an analysis of their own, which I also have gone in detail. I wouldn't say I've shown your logic as flawed, but I've done more than enough to justify why the sentiment regarding the main topic can be valid.

It depends how such is done, which isn't bound to be well received by everyone. What you call sensitiveness, I call fair reasoning. We just have different interpretation regarding the boundaries of comedy regarding sensitive topics.

But a troubled mind isn't the same as the subject being discussed in which jokes can be made no matter the topic... since people having a party and not feeling the need to be massacred by the thought of people starving would be another matter, maybe it'd speak to someone who was pushing the argument that everyone is complacent with their lives with no regards to how others are suffering. I put that in the context of the jokes being made about such scenario.

Explain what isn't strong.

Your preferences have been understood. The conversation has moved past that, clearl

Because there're valid reasons not to like the way those gags were portrayed in DB, specially considering today's mindset of consent age valid for some countries, and such isn't necessarily negated by ppl enjoying violent scenes, because they're singular cases... For instance, if in the violence scene there was no context to it and it portrayed a woman being spanked by men, I doubt anyone would find motive to laugh or find it cool, unless there's very specific scenario nuances, like the woman from the Manson's family being spanked by the brad Pitt character in the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood movie.

Ok, then we can go past that. Your disagreements with my preferences have been understood as well.

Characters negatively affected by Frieza express sadness, pain, sorrow, etc. - it's not about the method he used to cause atrocities, but the fact that he did what he did, and the impact of it. That can't be downplayed, regardless of whichever reason someone takes a liking to him for.

Yes, but all of his violence was within the contest of the plot tool for the narrative, with morales clashing and a heavy punishment. As for the finding him cool, that agains goes back to what I said about violence in fiction vs the portrayal of sexual harassment jokes, which is more easily separated as it highlights a more specific problem plaguing one group in specific, even moreso when there are minors in the way, and aren't held up to the same standard, since violence is more trivialized. It's ok to have games in which the character can spank someone randomly in the streets, like GTA. As far as I know, I haven't seen many, if at all, allowing for a rape women portrayal, or even abusing them in more explicit ways. Might be wrong, tho I'm talking in general about games, not all, 100% games.

This doesn't apply to Roshi though. His perverted tendencies don't mimic a particular figure.

It doesn't mean a particular figure, but it mimicks a problem that is hugely ongoing and which targets a more unique vulnarable group... while violence can be seen more in a broad sense. People can also like Freeza for highlights such as his absurd strength, his seemingly unlimited potential and the threat he put the Z warriors in when everyone was a fighter. It wouldn't be the same as liking some sexual assaulter, since its potential for praise and finding cool would be much more dubious. For example, I like Roshi as well.

Was simply just mentioning that it's still a recurring comedic angle. Comedy may take society into consideration, but ultimately it's about whether the material can get viewers to laugh. At elite levels, it's a sophisticated process, especially for those that like to push boundaries and take things to the next level.

There're many stupid things that make ppl laugh... there're racist jokes, jokes about the way jews died, pedo jokes... finding ppl to laugh is easy since there will be always those ones who will laugh with no regards to the seriousness of the matter, so its existence doesn't speak to the validity of the existence of the jokes in a just manner.


@Spiral-Force

 

[Spiral-Force]

I've gone in detail about how the comparison to ppl enjoying violence doesn't necessarily negate their rolling eyes to scenes portraying sexual harassment in a light way, and I've said one example in which a non tolerable issue irl doesn't mean other sensitive topics doesn't deserve an analysis of their own, which I also have gone in detail. I wouldn't say I've shown your logic as flawed, but I've done more than enough to justify why the sentiment regarding the main topic can be valid.

You're picking and choosing what you're ok with, and not ok with, when both categories of content can be deemed as a no-no IRL. -- Proving my point about the selectiveness of your argument.

When questioned about why you don't feel the same with violence, you hinge on other people being cool with it in the entertainment space. -- Proving my point about you having a hive-mind while simultaneously brushing your own logic under the carpet when it suits you.

When your argument is led by emotion, it's no surprise it has vulnerabilities.

It depends how such is done, which isn't bound to be well received by everyone. What you call sensitiveness, I call fair reasoning. We just have different interpretation regarding the boundaries of comedy regarding sensitive topics.

Haven't really seen reasoning from you. Very little debating mixed with a lot of filler.

But a troubled mind isn't the same as the subject being discussed in which jokes can be made no matter the topic... since people having a party and not feeling the need to be massacred by the thought of people starving would be another matter, maybe it'd speak to someone who was pushing the argument that everyone is complacent with their lives with no regards to how others are suffering. I put that in the context of the jokes being made about such scenario.

It's a matter of someone struggling with their priorities. Shouldn't be difficult to interpret.

Because there're valid reasons not to like the way those gags were portrayed in DB, specially considering today's mindset of consent age valid for some countries, and such isn't necessarily negated by ppl enjoying violent scenes, because they're singular cases... For instance, if in the violence scene there was no context to it and it portrayed a woman being spanked by men, I doubt anyone would find motive to laugh or find it cool, unless there's very specific scenario nuances, like the woman from the Manson's family being spanked by the brad Pitt character in the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood movie.

From a logic standpoint, the way you don't let a violent scene bother you beyond the fictional space is essentially the same phenomenon as someone that enjoys perverted comedy for what it is -- seeing the entertainment value of it.

Also, people have the choice of what they want to watch. It's not like anyone forced you to rewatch the Roshi scenes.

Yes, but all of his violence was within the contest of the plot tool for the narrative, with morales clashing and a heavy punishment. As for the finding him cool, that agains goes back to what I said about violence in fiction vs the portrayal of sexual harassment jokes, which is more easily separated as it highlights a more specific problem plaguing one group in specific, even moreso when there are minors in the way, and aren't held up to the same standard, since violence is more trivialized. It's ok to have games in which the character can spank someone randomly in the streets, like GTA. As far as I know, I haven't seen many, if at all, allowing for a rape women portrayal, or even abusing them in more explicit ways. Might be wrong, tho I'm talking in general about games, not all, 100% games.

Roshi's perverted scenes were in the context of the narrative too, technically. You're not going anywhere with these attempts of separation.

Interestingly, even trivialised violence can have serious repercussions. For example, Will Smith slapping Chris Rock. Loads of memes were made from it, but at the same time, most people dragged the crap out of him for it and it heavily hindered his career.

It doesn't mean a particular figure, but it mimicks a problem that is hugely ongoing and which targets a more unique vulnarable group... while violence can be seen more in a broad sense. People can also like Freeza for highlights such as his absurd strength, his seemingly unlimited potential and the threat he put the Z warriors in when everyone was a fighter. It wouldn't be the same as liking some sexual assaulter, since its potential for praise and finding cool would be much more dubious. For example, I like Roshi as well.

If there was a IRL mass murderer who was known for being a good painter and had charm, the acts he committed would still heavily overshadow those qualities. In Frieza's case, it's just not thought about as much since he's a fictional entity at the end of the day.

Roshi is a multi-faceted character. People can appreciate his comical side (or not, like you), and take a liking to his martial arts prowess and battles.

There're many stupid things that make ppl laugh... there're racist jokes, jokes about the way jews died, pedo jokes... finding ppl to laugh is easy since there will be always those ones who will laugh with no regards to the seriousness of the matter, so its existence doesn't speak to the validity of the existence of the jokes in a just manner.

Ultimately, comics cater to their audience. If they can get butts in seats, make them laugh, and keep the revenue rolling, then life is good. If a few folks get caught up in their feelings, that's on them - may as well look for something on the softer side than revisiting content they're not cool with.

 

[Boo Brand Milk]

Different cultures and times view things differently. America has had a real awakening of certain things we used to think were appropriate but clearly are not, especially regarding women. Pedo jokes have always been very weird and Japan’s culture seems to really dive into this kind of comedy. Their age of consent is also much different. Pedo jokes are disgusting.

Is this still going on in 2023? I'm sure a lot of changes happened over there too.

 

[FeatsofPower]

Well they just extended the age of consent from 13 to 16, so there are massive ramifications for having the age of consent being 13 for so long. It’s good they are finally trying to get out of that pedo culture but sure it’s been present there forever. Perverts and pedophiles dominate Japanese culture

 

[ahill1]

You're picking and choosing what you're ok with, and not ok with, when both categories of content can be deemed as a no-no IRL. -- Proving my point about the selectiveness of your argument.

When questioned about why you don't feel the same with violence, you hinge on other people being cool with it in the entertainment space. -- Proving my point about you having a hive-mind while simultaneously brushing your own logic under the carpet when it suits you.

When your argument is led by emotion, it's no surprise it has vulnerabilities.

I'm not picking and choosing randomly, that's the difference. I'm picking and choosing on what I find there's more room to joke around with and what there is less room to, again proving my point that you're going over something I've already explained to why I don't hold in the same category.

No, it's not only on other people... I find it an easier thing to joke around because it's already a more easily trivialized issue, a more general issue, and don't necessarily target other groups in specific, when it's done, so I'm more ok with it.

When your argument is led simply by being insistent on things and trying to prove a point at all costs, it's no surprise it comes off as repetitive over the long term.

Haven't really seen reasoning from you. Very little debating mixed with a lot of filler.

I've seen little from you, likewise. Too many insistences on single aspects while pretending to be looking at it in a more general level when it's actually just grouping up issues on a superficial level. So similar feeling regarding yourself.

It's a matter of someone struggling with their priorities. Shouldn't be difficult to interpret.

Their priority is enjoying thmselves... it shouldn't be being hung up on the hunger and not having their fun, because ultimately they weren't the ones who led into that state of the world... it's not in their power to do anything to overcome that. That doesn't mean some bad feeling many not arise when thinking about homeless and starving ppl, which, while won't ruin the moment they are having, may be a valid feeling of perception and quick thinking, in a moment of praying, for example. Way different from accepting a joke from someone targeting others in this situation. This shouldn't be that difficult to interpret, either.

From a logic standpoint, the way you don't let a violent scene bother you beyond the fictional space is essentially the same phenomenon as someone that enjoys perverted comedy for what it is -- seeing the entertainment value of it.

Also, people have the choice of what they want to watch. It's not like anyone forced you to rewatch the Roshi scene

Ok, because, again, violence scene is trivialized enough and have enough variances that I can look at it in a broader scene and enjoy it for its comedic values, the same can't be said for comedic sexual harassment scenes, which constitutes of more specific targeted groups, are done in a different and casual way, and speaks to something which for many isn't accaptable as a trivialized thing, being more concerning than a violence scene which can have more variance on what it influences and who is it ultimately targeting. So you done talking about this, and talking about my preferences in specific?

I didn't say I was forced to rewatch it. I said that looking at them again isn't something I'd laugh and look at to with the same mentality I did before, finding it cringe. I didn't put myself or others in a way they were forced to watch those scene repeatedly.

Roshi's perverted scenes were in the context of the narrative too, technically. You're not going anywhere with these attempts of separation.

Interestingly, even trivialised violence can have serious repercussions. For example, Will Smith slapping Chris Rock. Loads of memes were made from it, but at the same time, most people dragged the crap out of him for it and it heavily hindered his caree

They were in a different context for the narrative, not there as an essential thing, moreso as off moments made for fun. Differently from the violent scenes which are more a part of the narrative which revolves way moreso around violence.

Will Smith slapping Chris Rock wasn't done in a joking manner or wasn't portrayed in a movie or anything like this... it was a serious act, hence why it had all those repercussions. Were it a women badmouthing his wife like Chris Rock did, and he enacted a disgusting act on camera like disrespecting her sexually, there wouldn't be almost anyone defending him and those who did would in general be way more ostracized, proving the point that violence can many times be seen as a legitimate reaction to something while responding to a personal provocation that hurts family members in a disrespectful sexual assault way, won't ever have the same weight.

If there was a IRL mass murderer who was known for being a good painter and had charm, the acts he committed would still heavily overshadow those qualities. In Frieza's case, it's just not thought about as much since he's a fictional entity at the end of the day.

Roshi is a multi-faceted character. People can appreciate his comical side (or not, like you), and take a liking to his martial arts prowess and battles.
There're many stupid things that

Hence why I said that I like Roshi as a whole since his perverted character isn't the whole or even main constitution of his character. And yes, what you said is true, actions irl will always be held differently by ppl... but that doesn't mean people can't have fair reasoning for not liking certain traits being portrayed lightly even when it comes from a fictional character. That doesn't mean the repercussion and standards the characters will be held in will be the same as irl, just that the portrayal of the scene itself isn't something that pleases them in those specifics scenes. It's not because fiction characters are analysed through totally different lens from irl people that you need to be in agreement and not take your own issues with every scene portrayed.

Ultimately, comics cater to their audience. If they can get butts in seats, make them laugh, and keep the revenue rolling, then life is good. If a few folks get caught up in their feelings, that's on them - may as well look for something on the softer side than revisiting content they're not cool with.

Ultimately, the topic is about discussing who is fine and who is not with Roshi's scenes, not to point at ppl who are fine with them and say "you shouldn't, you should be disgusted by such scenes", so your reminder of how fictional comedy gets accross in isn't necessary since the point was never to pretend it'd be better if DB were re-written and those scenes weren't portrayed, just at how ppl looking back at them, in restrospect, feel.


@Spiral-Force

 

[Spiral-Force]

I'm not picking and choosing randomly, that's the difference. I'm picking and choosing on what I find there's more room to joke around with and what there is less room to, again proving my point that you're going over something I've already explained to why I don't hold in the same category.

No, it's not only on other people... I find it an easier thing to joke around because it's already a more easily trivialized issue, a more general issue, and don't necessarily target other groups in specific, when it's done, so I'm more ok with it.

Where do you draw the line with your categorisation? For instance, is mis-touching someone worse than beating someone up? What if it's multiple people getting beaten up instead? This is your opportunity to explain your way of thinking.

You say it's not only on others, yet anchor your reasoning to society in the same sentence.

You appear to have understood your selectivity at least.

When your argument is led simply by being insistent on things and trying to prove a point at all costs, it's no surprise it comes off as repetitive over the long term.

I've seen little from you, likewise. Too many insistences on single aspects while pretending to be looking at it in a more general level when it's actually just grouping up issues on a superficial level. So similar feeling regarding yourself.

How about you engage with what's being argued instead of making a faulty observation?

Violence and perverted behaviour come with all sorts of scenarios and severities that attempting to universally weigh one over the other with any specificity would be incredibly questionable and subjective. The only certified aspect is that both things can be classed as unpleasant for the victim, so it makes sense to want to look at the grand scheme of things than only portions.

Your viewpoint doesn't uphold logic, but rather, personal feeling. If you want to argue that feelings override logic in this case, then we can discuss that. If you disagree with this characterisation, explain your logic system.

Their priority is enjoying thmselves... it shouldn't be being hung up on the hunger and not having their fun, because ultimately they weren't the ones who led into that state of the world... it's not in their power to do anything to overcome that. That doesn't mean some bad feeling many not arise when thinking about homeless and starving ppl, which, while won't ruin the moment they are having, may be a valid feeling of perception and quick thinking, in a moment of praying, for example. Way different from accepting a joke from someone targeting others in this situation. This shouldn't be that difficult to interpret, either.

Not interested in a strawman that masquerades as an interpretation.

Ok, because, again, violence scene is trivialized enough and have enough variances that I can look at it in a broader scene and enjoy it for its comedic values, the same can't be said for comedic sexual harassment scenes, which constitutes of more specific targeted groups, are done in a different and casual way, and speaks to something which for many isn't accaptable as a trivialized thing, being more concerning than a violence scene which can have more variance on what it influences and who is it ultimately targeting. So you done talking about this, and talking about my preferences in specific?

This trivialised violence point you perpetuate is primarily in the confines of entertainment, as are perverted scenes.

IRL violence is basically always seen as degenerate, even in the mildest cases. The absurdity of such situations are what's laughable if at all, not the acts.

Recognising that there's a time and place for everything, and being able to adapt oneself to the activity they find themselves in seems more efficient than getting riled up and deploying an inconsistent moral argument.

Repeatedly bringing up 'targeted groups' isn't saying much. Any joke topic can be framed as targeting a specific group.

I didn't say I was forced to rewatch it. I said that looking at them again isn't something I'd laugh and look at to with the same mentality I did before, finding it cringe. I didn't put myself or others in a way they were forced to watch those scene repeatedly.

You weren't strapped to a chair with your eye sockets stretched out, no.

Freedom of choice.

They were in a different context for the narrative, not there as an essential thing, moreso as off moments made for fun. Differently from the violent scenes which are more a part of the narrative which revolves way moreso around violence.

If scenes make the final cut, why does essentiality matter? Looks like another attempt to move the goalposts in plain sight.

Will Smith slapping Chris Rock wasn't done in a joking manner or wasn't portrayed in a movie or anything like this... it was a serious act, hence why it had all those repercussions. Were it a women badmouthing his wife like Chris Rock did, and he enacted a disgusting act on camera like disrespecting her sexually, there wouldn't be almost anyone defending him and those who did would in general be way more ostracized, proving the point that violence can many times be seen as a legitimate reaction to something while responding to a personal provocation that hurts family members in a disrespectful sexual assault way, won't ever have the same weight.

Seems like a pointless hypothetical.

Unless you're trying to establish a hard rule (which I don't think will go well for you), this is a nothing burger.

Hence why I said that I like Roshi as a whole since his perverted character isn't the whole or even main constitution of his character. And yes, what you said is true, actions irl will always be held differently by ppl... but that doesn't mean people can't have fair reasoning for not liking certain traits being portrayed lightly even when it comes from a fictional character. That doesn't mean the repercussion and standards the characters will be held in will be the same as irl, just that the portrayal of the scene itself isn't something that pleases them in those specifics scenes. It's not because fiction characters are analysed through totally different lens from irl people that you need to be in agreement and not take your own issues with every scene portrayed.

Preference is one thing, but if you're using the term 'fair reasoning' as a stand-in for logical, then I disagree. I'd say that's a mis-characterisation of your position on your end.

Ultimately, the topic is about discussing who is fine and who is not with Roshi's scenes, not to point at ppl who are fine with them and say "you shouldn't, you should be disgusted by such scenes", so your reminder of how fictional comedy gets accross in isn't necessary since the point was never to pretend it'd be better if DB were re-written and those scenes weren't portrayed, just at how ppl looking back at them, in restrospect, feel.

The topic got elaborated on. Keep up.

Criticising a point that ties to a bigger point to make it seem like you're doing something...? Come on.

 

[ahill1]

Where do you draw the line with your categorisation? For instance, is mis-touching someone worse than beating someone up? What if it's multiple people getting beaten up instead? This is your opportunity to explain your way of thinking.

You say it's not only on others, yet anchor your reasoning to society in the same sentence.

You appear to have understood your selectivity at least.

I've already shown where I draw the line many times here. It's not that I think beating someone up is more acceptable than mistouching, which is what you are getting wrong. I think that the representation of beating someone up on fiction is more acceptable depending on how mistouching someone is portrayed. Violence is a trivialized issue, and more fine to joke around, since it doesn't necessarily target a group in soecific (it can, but not necessarily) and can be done for "fairness", not that it's justifiable, but can be more acceptable as a punishment than punishing a women by abusing her, which wouldn't be as acceptable.

Because how society reacts, on a whole, reflects its level of acceptability, many times, in a sensible sense. Much the same way, again, you make jokes about killing, but raping women jokes are way uglier. It's not totally random, there're specific reasons for why one seems more acceptable as jokes.

It's not a random selectivity, so I've not understood it in a way that I just admit my selectively speaks to my preferences alone not guided by logic.

How about you engage with what's being argued instead of making a faulty observation?

How about you follow your own advice and stick to what's being argued instead of backhand comments? Because it's just responding you in the same tone you resorted to earlier, which added nothing to the conversarion. Faulty in your opinion maybe, I stand by you being insistent on the same points when the points have already gotten their ideas accross.

Violence and perverted behaviour come with all sorts of scenarios and severities that attempting to universally weigh one over the other with any specificity would be incredibly questionable and subjective. The only certified aspect is that both things can be classed as unpleasant for the victim, so it makes sense to want to look at the grand scheme of things than only portions.

It'll depend on a whole lot of factors. Violence can also be bad considering who it's targeting. It's rare for ppl to het a kick from violence inflicted on women in the theather since the underline isssue will be more easily caught up. Not that it can be done, it can, as a way to portray the point of such a scene, but if it's done in a casual and joking way not intended to get a bigger point accrss, then it's all the same bad to me.

Your viewpoint doesn't uphold logic, but rather, personal feeling. If you want to argue that feelings override logic in this case, then we can discuss that. If you disagree with this characterisation, explain your logic system.

They're feelings that are guided by logic of things that look more acceptable and things that do not, since not all kind of jokes are gathered under the same umbrella, as there're more acceptable jokes than other ones.

Not interested in a strawman that masquerades as an interpretation.

Explain how this is a strawman then. Because actually, your example was the one who felt as a strawman... since I wasn't arguing ppl couldn't uphold a party without feeling extremely bad with the fact there're ppl starving. I was always focusing on the object of humour targeting issues relating to a specific problem targeting specifics on society, hence why someone joking about starving Africans would be more fitting within my argument. Explain your interpretation properly then if you really don't want it to be misinterpreted, which, with the way you put it, came off as way off the point I was defending.

This trivialised violence point you perpetuate is primarily in the confines of entertainment, as are perverted scenes.

IRL violence is basically always seen as degenerate, even in the mildest cases. The absurdity of such situations are what's laughable if at all, not the acts.

Recognising that there's a time and place for everything, and being able to adapt oneself to the activity they find themselves in seems more efficient than getting riled up and deploying an inconsistent moral argument.

Repeatedly bringing up 'targeted groups' isn't saying much. Any joke topic can be framed as targeting a specific

Like you said, the absurdity of such acts can be laughed at because violence is something easier to be made more trivial and have outblown scenes... it'd be different were it portrayed in an angle that glorifies violence in the sense it incentives ppl to do such. Ppl can get a laugh from it because it's overall, although bad irl, a thing that has more ample space to be exploited in comedic ways.

As with sexual jokes, depending on the way such is trivialized, it gives off a different vibe because it's treating lightly a real life struggle faced by more vulnerable groups, so it's harder to be portrayed under the lens in which the audience should get a kick from, since it'd be kind of normalizing the laughter of mistouching, sexual harassment and such.

Any joke can be made, I've already acknowledged that. As for how well they will be perceived by some, with legitimate reasons, is a different story altogether.

Although bad, violence in a general concept will just carry less consequences and be more easily to be made fun of than making light of the exploit of general specific groups, specially since the latter underlines a problem that needs the proper seriousness to address as a way for susceptible people from that group to feel safe and respected.

You weren't strapped to a chair with your eye sockets stretched out, no.

Freedom of choic

Again, not the point. I'm not speaking to a position in which I want to establish myself as carrying the burden of forcingly having to rewatch them. I'm speaking from a position of revisiting old material and seeing how some things were portrayed. It's not like I'm so averse to it that I just can't bear reading those scenes.

As for being trapped and forced to watch the contemt, which no one is, isn't in of itself a reason for the content to be there. No one is forced to watch videos of children murder or CP, sick ppl access them as they please... still no valid or even legal reason for them to be there. If a cartoon makes jokes about minors being abused or sexualised, one can't justify its legitimacy nowadays by saying no one is being forced to read them, since that's faulty reasoning and could be applied to many things under the premise of "no one is forced to read them".

If scenes make the final cut, why does essentiality matter? Looks like another attempt to move the goalposts in plain sight.

Since, again, they aren't essential to establish the plot, just there as a way to establish a less relevant but "comedic" side of a character, in a field the story doesn't revolve around, unlike, say, in Berserk where rape scenes are part of the building of the narrative. Not a way to move goalposts, I think you just didn't understand it.

Seems like a pointless hypothetical.

Unless you're trying to establish a hard rule (which I don't think will go well for you), this is a nothing burge

Not a pointless hypothetical, it's a hypothetical meaning as a means of reflection at how his actions would reverberate were the roles inverted and the act itself different in the context of the argued topic. Seems once again a labeling of pointless from you when you didn't understand the whole point.

Preference is one thing, but if you're using the term 'fair reasoning' as a stand-in for logical, then I disagree. I'd say that's a mis-characterisation of your position on your end.

I say ppl can react it as they please, all the while saying my reasoning for not liking it is fair logic. You don't agree it's fair logic, cool, I respect that, and since nothing you said convinces me of how the logic crumbles, I stand by that, which likewise, I expect comprehension from you towards that.

Criticising a point that ties to a bigger point to make it seem like you're doing something...? Come on.

Like I'm doing something... what? Elaborate on that.

And the point I was criticizing, is choosing to look at something softer when that's not the point of how criticisms are done and then resolved with, since the reasoning for the criticism can't be simply handwaved as a "you can look at something else", specially since many times to offer criticism on things you need to look at the content, not pretend it doesn't exist and find what you're ok with. And even if I choose to deviate from such portrayals in media, that doesn't mean the disagreement can't be displayed so long, as I've already said, you aren't forcing those ideals you abide for to anyone else, which I haven't. The topic evolved as to the legitimacy of someone taking a problem with the jokes, ok, but again, that doesn't tie to such person simply choosing to stray away from such content because, if so, the disagreement from you wouldn't concern the legitimacy of my feelings towards such scenes, it'd be like a escape answer from someone not interested in delving into specifics about the person's preferences you're arguing with and better suited to whoever is forcing their dislike to other people. I hope that seems clear enough for you.


@Spiral-Force

 

[Spiral-Force]

I've already shown where I draw the line many times here. It's not that I think beating someone up is more acceptable than mistouching, which is what you are getting wrong. I think that the representation of beating someone up on fiction is more acceptable depending on how mistouching someone is portrayed. Violence is a trivialized issue, and more fine to joke around, since it doesn't necessarily target a group in soecific (it can, but not necessarily) and can be done for "fairness", not that it's justifiable, but can be more acceptable as a punishment than punishing a women by abusing her, which wouldn't be as acceptable.

Because how society reacts, on a whole, reflects its level of acceptability, many times, in a sensible sense. Much the same way, again, you make jokes about killing, but raping women jokes are way uglier. It's not totally random, there're specific reasons for why one seems more acceptable as jokes.

It's not a random selectivity, so I've not understood it in a way that I just admit my selectively speaks to my preferences alone not guided by logic.

So your 'logic' is: it depends, fiction-wise. If you can't form a hard rule, why claim it's fair reasoning?

Your view is arbitrary, and gets more and more questionable with each response.

Even if some feel the same as you, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll argue on the same grounds, or argue it at all.

How about you follow your own advice and stick to what's being argued instead of backhand comments? Because it's just responding you in the same tone you resorted to earlier, which added nothing to the conversarion. Faulty in your opinion maybe, I stand by you being insistent on the same points when the points have already gotten their ideas accross.

It'll depend on a whole lot of factors. Violence can also be bad considering who it's targeting. It's rare for ppl to het a kick from violence inflicted on women in the theather since the underline isssue will be more easily caught up. Not that it can be done, it can, as a way to portray the point of such a scene, but if it's done in a casual and joking way not intended to get a bigger point accrss, then it's all the same bad to me.

They're feelings that are guided by logic of things that look more acceptable and things that do not, since not all kind of jokes are gathered under the same umbrella, as there're more acceptable jokes than other ones.

If you acknowledge that there are a whole lot of factors, then it should also be understood that fixating on the analysis of isolated hypotheticals without any firmly established principal isn't practical. Somehow, me recognising your fault is what you consider as adding nothing to the convo. The irony...

Explain how this is a strawman then. Because actually, your example was the one who felt as a strawman... since I wasn't arguing ppl couldn't uphold a party without feeling extremely bad with the fact there're ppl starving. I was always focusing on the object of humour targeting issues relating to a specific problem targeting specifics on society, hence why someone joking about starving Africans would be more fitting within my argument. Explain your interpretation properly then if you really don't want it to be misinterpreted, which, with the way you put it, came off as way off the point I was defending.

The strawman is your constant attempt to make my example look irrelevant, when the actual point (a burdened mind) was absolutely valid, straightforward, and already explained. You claim I'm the one being repetitive when you're the guy trying to re-trace old steps while simultaneously wanting me to spoon-feed you.

Like you said, the absurdity of such acts can be laughed at because violence is something easier to be made more trivial and have outblown scenes... it'd be different were it portrayed in an angle that glorifies violence in the sense it incentives ppl to do such. Ppl can get a laugh from it because it's overall, although bad irl, a thing that has more ample space to be exploited in comedic ways.

As with sexual jokes, depending on the way such is trivialized, it gives off a different vibe because it's treating lightly a real life struggle faced by more vulnerable groups, so it's harder to be portrayed under the lens in which the audience should get a kick from, since it'd be kind of normalizing the laughter of mistouching, sexual harassment and such.

Any joke can be made, I've already acknowledged that. As for how well they will be perceived by some, with legitimate reasons, is a different story altogether.

Although bad, violence in a general concept will just carry less consequences and be more easily to be made fun of than making light of the exploit of general specific groups, specially since the latter underlines a problem that needs the proper seriousness to address as a way for susceptible people from that group to feel safe and respected.

If you think the intent or act of inflicting pain/damage IRL is trivial, then I disagree. The triviality and virality stems from how people are being hooligans and making fools of themselves. It also doesn't help when the ones trying to act tough are twigs, have an odd fighting stance, and strike with poor form; all while yapping and making threats.

By your logic, can't violence target a specific group? Fictional series often have a bully character that picks on those weaker than them. Bullying is something that tons of people have been on the receiving end of IRL, causing mental struggles, and has led to self-harm and suicide. Are these things at the forefront of your mind when seeing a character getting violently bullied?

Again, not the point. I'm not speaking to a position in which I want to establish myself as carrying the burden of forcingly having to rewatch them. I'm speaking from a position of revisiting old material and seeing how some things were portrayed. It's not like I'm so averse to it that I just can't bear reading those scenes.

As for being trapped and forced to watch the contemt, which no one is, isn't in of itself a reason for the content to be there. No one is forced to watch videos of children murder or CP, sick ppl access them as they please... still no valid or even legal reason for them to be there. If a cartoon makes jokes about minors being abused or sexualised, one can't justify its legitimacy nowadays by saying no one is being forced to read them, since that's faulty reasoning and could be applied to many things under the premise of "no one is forced to read them".

Didn't say you were forced to watch. Quite the opposite. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

The rest of what you said is entirely irrelevant since Dragon Ball is entertainment media unlike those things you mentioned.

Since, again, they aren't essential to establish the plot, just there as a way to establish a less relevant but "comedic" side of a character, in a field the story doesn't revolve around, unlike, say, in Berserk where rape scenes are part of the building of the narrative. Not a way to move goalposts, I think you just didn't understand it.

Essentiality holds no relevance to what was being argued.

If content is released, then it can be judged.

Not a pointless hypothetical, it's a hypothetical meaning as a means of reflection at how his actions would reverberate were the roles inverted and the act itself different in the context of the argued topic. Seems once again a labeling of pointless from you when you didn't understand the whole point.

You chose a completely different scenario to attempt to stamp your arbitrary rules on. Pointless indeed.

I say ppl can react it as they please, all the while saying my reasoning for not liking it is fair logic. You don't agree it's fair logic, cool, I respect that, and since nothing you said convinces me of how the logic crumbles, I stand by that, which likewise, I expect comprehension from you towards that.

If something is logical, then it should be able to stand independent of personal input. I honestly can't say I've seen that from your stance.

And the point I was criticizing, is choosing to look at something softer when that's not the point of how criticisms are done and then resolved with, since the reasoning for the criticism can't be simply handwaved as a "you can look at something else", specially since many times to offer criticism on things you need to look at the content, not pretend it doesn't exist and find what you're ok with. And even if I choose to deviate from such portrayals in media, that doesn't mean the disagreement can't be displayed so long, as I've already said, you aren't forcing those ideals you abide for to anyone else, which I haven't. The topic evolved as to the legitimacy of someone taking a problem with the jokes, ok, but again, that doesn't tie to such person simply choosing to stray away from such content because, if so, the disagreement from you wouldn't concern the legitimacy of my feelings towards such scenes, it'd be like a escape answer from someone not interested in delving into specifics about the person's preferences you're arguing with and better suited to whoever is forcing their dislike to other people. I hope that seems clear enough for you.

This is an unnecessary and misleading take on what was purely an add-on to the topic.

When someone isn't entertained by something that carries the purpose of entertainment and instead complains, there's nothing wrong with highlighting that they have the privilege to find other content that satisfies them. That seems more productive than virtue-signalling with shaky rhetoric.