Show User Social Media
Hide User Social Media
- Jan 13, 2008
- Lima, Peru
Recognizing any action's consequences isn't the same as assuming responsability for aggresions "called upon" oneself for said actions, be that aggresion whatever it may be (moral boycott is a form of aggression, of course of a very different level of, say, a terrorist massacre, but aggresion nonetheless).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.
Taking for granted that you can refrain and selfcensor your production for the sake of sales, as in, a market study that tells you that pandering (or failing to) to this or that audience can increase or diminish your profit, is one thing, an irrefutable reality. But even aknowledging this reality, you still can't say that the selfcensoring in itself the "ethical thing to do" because of imagined or real hurt sensibilities.
That is speaking abstractly and generally.
In the particular case of Bandai and Sistermon Noir & Blanc, the irony is that beside those considerations, I and a lot of people came to think that this is non-issue and that Bandai is overreacting. So, those are the two arguments I'm making: a) if you wanna selfcensor for profit, go for it, but can't say it's because hurted feelings and b) in this particular case the nun isn't a real issue, so, Bandai is overreacting.