English Card Game Booster Set 6- Sistermon Ciel Replaces Sistermon Noir

[DPTronazel]

Wait a minute, I thought the reason why she was censored is that she's a sexualized nun not because she's a gun-wielding nun???
I remember reading a thread when she was replaced by Ciel and it was for that reason? Or maybe I'm mixing things up.

 

[TMS]

The official reason (whether true or not) is just that she’s a nun who dresses in black like a real nun.

 

[YongYoKyo]

Well, real nuns indeed don't wear pastel-blue or pink veils.

I see people bringing up the existence of angel and demon Digimon as an argument, or how that they're Christian and not offended. However, that's a very skewed comparison. Nuns are actual real-world "professions," unlike angels and demons. Also, I doubt that practically anyone arguing about this are nuns themselves, so why can they speak for the nuns?

Not that it justifies the censorship in the first place. I'm against censorship, personally. Just pointing out that those are unfair arguments.

 

[McGann]

it's like she never happened

Noir is not there. Where did she go?

Nunuya business!!

 

[Sparrow Hawk]

it's like she never happened

...

Damn even involving certain cards with the backgrounds.... Ugh fine. I will just search for certain stores if they stack up japanese boxes... Why just why.

Sistermon Noir will have strong fanbase just wait you see. Only you reinforce their faiths stronger!

 

[shynely]

Well, real nuns indeed don't wear pastel-blue or pink veils.

I see people bringing up the existence of angel and demon Digimon as an argument, or how that they're Christian and not offended. However, that's a very skewed comparison. Nuns are actual real-world "professions," unlike angels and demons. Also, I doubt that practically anyone arguing about this are nuns themselves, so why can they speak for the nuns?

Not that it justifies the censorship in the first place. I'm against censorship, personally. Just pointing out that those are unfair arguments.

Maybe this is a bit tangetial, but I looked at the Wikipedia article for The Da Vinci Code, and the biggest backlash did not come from Opus Dei, the organization depicted in the movie and novel, but various other people. (Opus Dei complained about it, but they weren't involved with the protests and bans)

What I'm trying to get that is, this kind of uproar (when it actually happens) seems to be about the religion itself general rather than the specific religious groups actually portrayed.

Also, the "depicts a real-world profession" standpoint just gets really weird when you remember any other wacky thing in mass media. You can find analyses on how basically any profession is portrayed wrong in TV shows or whatever, and all of those are far more direct than "a monster that dresses like that job".

Perhaps more relevant would the old D&D Satanic Panic, which had more to do with allegedly being "occult", rather than say, clergymen complaining that the Cleric class was a bad portrayal of their own job.

 

[Muur]

At least three nuns are herioc Digimon that help save the world. Would understand more if they were evil

 

[YongYoKyo]

Well, real nuns indeed don't wear pastel-blue or pink veils.

I see people bringing up the existence of angel and demon Digimon as an argument, or how that they're Christian and not offended. However, that's a very skewed comparison. Nuns are actual real-world "professions," unlike angels and demons. Also, I doubt that practically anyone arguing about this are nuns themselves, so why can they speak for the nuns?

Not that it justifies the censorship in the first place. I'm against censorship, personally. Just pointing out that those are unfair arguments.

Maybe this is a bit tangetial, but I looked at the Wikipedia article for The Da Vinci Code, and the biggest backlash did not come from Opus Dei, the organization depicted in the movie and novel, but various other people. (Opus Dei complained about it, but they weren't involved with the protests and bans)

What I'm trying to get that is, this kind of uproar (when it actually happens) seems to be about the religion itself general rather than the specific religious groups actually portrayed.

Also, the "depicts a real-world profession" standpoint just gets really weird when you remember any other wacky thing in mass media. You can find analyses on how basically any profession is portrayed wrong in TV shows or whatever, and all of those are far more direct than "a monster that dresses like that job".

Perhaps more relevant would the old D&D Satanic Panic, which had more to do with allegedly being "occult", rather than say, clergymen complaining that the Cleric class was a bad portrayal of their own job.

Again, very skewed comparison. The second-highest-grossing movie of 2006 is on a completely different scale than a niche Japanese trading card game.

Also, you're making it seem like the opinions of specific groups don't matter just because they didn't make a loud enough ruckus, even if they did complain.

 

[shynely]

I mean, it's clearly never mattered enough to actually stop these things. I've never heard of say, medical shows getting pulled because they weren't realistic portrayal of doctors.

As for the "skewed compparison point", if anything, more niche media seems to be safer from such controversy, when you compare say, the negative attention Pokemon attracted throughout the years, versus the nonexistence of Digimon drama. Or D&D versus any less popular tabletop games that involve themes that could be viewed as "occult".

Also, this "actual nuns" angle looks like a weird hypothetical at best, since nobody brought up any actual examples of real nuns complaining about cosplay monsters.

 

[YongYoKyo]

I mean, it's clearly never mattered enough to actually stop these things. I've never heard of say, medical shows getting pulled because they weren't realistic portrayal of doctors.

As for the "skewed compparison point", if anything, more niche media seems to be safer from such controversy, when you compare say, the negative attention Pokemon attracted throughout the years, versus the nonexistence of Digimon drama. Or D&D versus any less popular tabletop games that involve themes that could be viewed as "occult".

Also, this "actual nuns" angle looks like a weird hypothetical at best, since nobody brought up any actual examples of real nuns complaining about cosplay monsters.

Non-religious for-profit professions and religious "professions" are two completely different things.

You're missing the point. It's not about whether they're in a position that's safer from controversy or not. It's the fact that if they want to leave that very position and expand from niche to mainstream, then they have to be more conscious of such things than before. Case in point, all of those examples you've mentioned are very clear guidelines of the risks of not minding similar issues if they want to become mainstream, especially when they have a relatively-lacking fanbase compared to those big-names.

Also, again. This isn't about the response of the involved parties, but the fact that they're actual people under solemn religious vows that they clearly care very much about. You should always be mindful of these actual people, regardless of their response (or lack thereof). Improper behavior is not justified just because the "victims" don't vocalize any complaints.


I will reiterate that I don't support the censorship. I'm just saying that these are unfair or skewed arguments against it.

 

[shynely]

Case in point, all of those examples you've mentioned are very clear guidelines of the risks of not minding similar issues if they want to become mainstream.

Are they really? I mean, Pokemon's controversies (at least the religion-related ones) sometimes look so weirdly removed from its actual content that I'm not sure how Nintendo and Gamefreak could've avoided them even in a hypothetical timeline were they put more effort into minding any potential issues.

Also, again. This isn't about the response of the involved parties, but the fact that they're actual people under solemn religious vows that they very clearly care very much about. You should always be mindful of these actual people, regardless of their response (or lack thereof). Improper behavior is not justified just because the "victims" don't vocalize any complaints.

I don't think these groups need us to make assumptions about how they might feel, especially considering how huge, public and vocal Christianity is. Frankly, I don't see how making assumptions about how other people think is "being mindful".

 

[YongYoKyo]

Also, again. This isn't about the response of the involved parties, but the fact that they're actual people under solemn religious vows that they very clearly care very much about. You should always be mindful of these actual people, regardless of their response (or lack thereof). Improper behavior is not justified just because the "victims" don't vocalize any complaints.

I don't think these groups need us to make assumptions about how they might feel, especially considering how huge, public and vocal Christianity is. Frankly, I don't see how making assumptions about how other people think is "being mindful".

Exactly my point. People are assuming they can speak for the nuns' feelings when they argue against this.

Also, being mindful isn't about making assumptions. Being mindful of their existence is to be mindful that they're real human beings that exist. Regardless of whether the people themselves are perfectly okay with it, it is still a misrepresentation of these real actual monastics as gun-slinging killers. You're caring too much about their response to the action, and not enough about the inherent properness of the action itself.

 

[VamAngemon]

No such thing as "Catholic censorship" in the 21st century... No one would give the slightest care about a digimon depicted as nun, c'mon... EVER. I've studied my bachelor degree in a Seminary, and no Catholic I've ever met have been pro-censorship, at all.
And also art has no responsability in maintaining unperturbed feelings in a given people. Art can mock whatever it wants, and no-one could say a thing. Or they could, and be the bigots themselves. Remember Charlie Hebdo?

 

[Tortoiseshel]

I think Bandai and/or Toei are just being very cautious in advance to try and avoid any potential controversy, but I think they're being very silly. Yes, Pokemon was once targeted by conservative religious groups, but has Digimon ever been the subject of similar backlash? Even with its much more "objectionable" content, I can't think of a time when it was. The moral guardians didn't seem to get up in arms about all the devil monsters for kids to befriend, so I can't imagine they'd care much about some sexy nun.

 

[Chimera-gui]

I think Bandai and/or Toei are just being very cautious in advance to try and avoid any potential controversy, but I think they're being very silly. Yes, Pokemon was once targeted by conservative religious groups, but has Digimon ever been the subject of similar backlash? Even with its much more "objectionable" content, I can't think of a time when it was. The moral guardians didn't seem to get up in arms about all the devil monsters for kids to befriend, so I can't imagine they'd care much about some sexy nun.

Only because Digimon was overshadowed by the very thing these groups targeted for far less to begin with, Pokemon. I promise you Digimon will start getting attacked the second it starts getting any real mainstream attention.

Also @VamAngemon the art argument doesn't work because Digimon is a commercial product first and foremost, not a painting in the Louvre. It's the same reason I take issue with this argument when it comes to video games, people boycott products all the time.

Don't believe me? Enjoy trying to Megatron his gun alt mode back for a main series toyline.

Like it or not, Bandai is well within its rights to head off both of these potential consequences before they have to actually suffer the consequences of not doing so.

Right now, we've got plenty of proverbial cover but entering the mainstream will be like playing classic Doom where cover is nonexistent so I would get used to there being no cover going forward.

 

[DPTronazel]

Weird how these angry Catholics or whoever Bandai are scared of didn't give a shit when Noir and Blanc were in the English released game Digimon Heroes in 2016 maybe they don't actually care after all Bandai

Maybe at that time, the Digimon resurgence wasn't so big? Or I think that it's a mobile game and no one would give a care.

I think Bandai and/or Toei are just being very cautious in advance to try and avoid any potential controversy, but I think they're being very silly. Yes, Pokemon was once targeted by conservative religious groups, but has Digimon ever been the subject of similar backlash? Even with its much more "objectionable" content, I can't think of a time when it was. The moral guardians didn't seem to get up in arms about all the devil monsters for kids to befriend, so I can't imagine they'd care much about some sexy nun.

Only because Digimon was overshadowed by the very thing these groups targeted for far less to begin with, Pokemon. I promise you Digimon will start getting attacked the second it starts getting any real mainstream attention.

Also @VamAngemon the art argument doesn't work because Digimon is a commercial product first and foremost, not a painting in the Louvre. It's the same reason I take issue with this argument when it comes to video games, people boycott products all the time.

Don't believe me? Enjoy trying to Megatron his gun alt mode back for a main series toyline.

Like it or not, Bandai is well within its rights to head off both of these potential consequences before they have to actually suffer the consequences of not doing so.

Right now, we've got plenty of proverbial cover but entering the mainstream will be like playing classic Doom where cover is nonexistent so I would get used to there being no cover going forward.

I may get a little off-topic here, but sometimes I'm often paranoid about that, especially when comes down to some people wanting Agumon to join Smash might lead up to it (if such thing ever happens, obviously not I hope.)
And I shall not name of what happened on what I call "3rd day of August incident" which unfortunately gave Digimon a negative presence on a certain website that "get things trending".

 

[VamAngemon]

Also @VamAngemon the art argument doesn't work because Digimon is a commercial product first and foremost, not a painting in the Louvre. It's the same reason I take issue with this argument when it comes to video games, people boycott products all the time.

Well, I never said they haven't the right, they can do whatever they want with their IPs and people can buy whatever they want or not. What I said was no Catholic ever would give shit about an anime Nun. Everytime there have been a "moral panic" it have always came from small, extremist Protestant Christian communities, not Catholic nor Lutheran/Anglican. That, and that @YongYoKyo was overreaching when speaking about, let me paraphrase with my understanding, "the moral imperative to not to offend any professional and religious sensibility". I claim there's no such thing. That art (be it commercial or not) has no axiological commitment not to offend (I'd even say the contrary, that it should have a commitmemnt TO offend, but that's the punk in me).

And iirc legally there isn't any substantial difference between an ilustration made for a commercial card game and a "high art" painting. My example was Charlie Hebdo, a well known satirical comercial magazine targeted by religious extremist because their religious mockery. Here we have a case of something like Hebdo's editor deciding to change some joke when ediiting their magazine overseas just not to offend some sensibility.

They're in their right but that doesn't make it less dissapointing and, imho, stupid and pointless.

 

[e105zeta]

Also @VamAngemon the art argument doesn't work because Digimon is a commercial product first and foremost, not a painting in the Louvre. It's the same reason I take issue with this argument when it comes to video games, people boycott products all the time.

The dirty secret is that, except for graffiti and fanfiction, all art is commercial.

 

[Unknown Neo]

I'm not sure about Graffiti sometimes. But yeah. You're right.

 

[Chimera-gui]

Saying that taking a step back to recognize that actions have consequences is stupid and pointless is rather tone-deaf especially when the magazine's actions had lethal consequences, whether you agree with the magazine's response or not.

As Tara likes to reiterate on What the Fuck is Wrong with You: Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequences.

That's why I am genuinely confused and annoyed by how people can still underestimate the power and influence "Moral Guardians" still have over media even after not just the Pokemon scare but the DnD scare and perhaps most importantly the Hays Code.

Like the artistic freedom audiences take for granted? Filmmakers fought the Code tooth and nail for DECADES just to get that level and the effects of the Code still influence film to this day.