This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This actually makes me happy to hear, based on some things I had read a few months ago it sounded like translators were struggling to find work. I've already had to deal with subpar LLM translations in some animes etc., and sadly I think companies like Crunchyroll are going to be too cheap to go back to real translators. Though it might be an improvement, given their human localizers's penchant for injecting modern woke politics into their translations.
Edit: typo
It is rather hard to feel sorry for human localizers given their obvious disdain for the content and those who consume it. For all the problems of LLMs, such seething hatred is rarely included.
Can you share some examples?
https://preview.redd.it/t8si5jmaw9pg1.jpeg?width=646&auto=webp&s=6f8a203626ed9fda42160a04d358b04f7c528b7d - The text with the white background is the lovely work of the "localizers"
https://i.redd.it/qm0ypm1csz3b1.png - Literalish translation would be "Crap! Why did I have to babble on about some weird fashion theory to a pro model of all people!?"
And over 20 examples are provided in this Twitter thread: https://x.com/BoundingComics/status/1741000080889720927
Also for an example of a localizer doing an amazing job and trying to be true to the source material is the fan translation of Mother 3 (AKA Earthbound 2): https://mother3.fobby.net/ https://youtube.com/watch?v=WjMllYgUOeU
Speaking as an outsider to this whole milieu, the discourse seems rather confused between complaining about motivated alterations specifically, and complaining about less-than-maximally-literal translation in general, which is to say, about the entire concept of localization. Several of the examples in the X thread seem to object about localizers using modern American slang even when it carries no culture-war salience at all.
For example, one of the linked articles take issue with changing a line about a girl being "a gyaru" to calling her "that gyaru bimbo". This is, to put it mildly, not what I would call a change oriented towards extra wokeness. Instead it seems obvious to me that the point is to convey a close-enough analogue to what a Japanese viewer would understand the term "gyaru" to mean to American viewers who might never have heard it before. Maybe it's a good translation, maybe not, but it's got nothing to do with tweaking dialogue to be more in line with western feminist norms - it's localization working as intended.
Consider an example from a show I recently watched. The FMC had just performed well in a contest and in reference to that feat a male side character exclaimed to those around him "Sasu ga <FMC>-san.", which was rendered in English as "That's my girl." The localizer inserts both a possessive ("my") and diminutive ("girl") into the phrase, both commonly complained about forms of sexism that are completely absent from the original. Now why would the "localizer" choose to localize it in that manner? Is it because the lack of sexism is something American viewers wouldn't understand, and therefore it had to be inserted? That makes no sense, as such language has been widely seen as sexist for decades in the US. Further, there are other non-sexist phrases that would make more sense in context, such as "That's <FMC> for you." No, that choice is a deliberate insertion of sexism to denigrate both the character and the fans. (ETA)And probably also to cater to some women's "strong women victim of sexism" fetish.
Though I thank you for the breakdown, this doesn't really address my observation. I don't dispute that, based on the linked articles, some localization choices are motivated by political correctness. What bothers and bemuses me is that some of the linked articles seem to see no difference between clear instances of politically motivated rewrites - e.g. turning a crossdressing he/him character into a trans girl to win representation points - and perfectly anodyne use of clearly-non-political American slang where it might not literally correspond to the word-by-word Japanese dialogue - e.g. talking about a character "yeeting" another. Is it truly the case that only politically-biased translators make those kinds of alterations too, while more literal-minded translators are also the ones who don't try to warp the political overtones of the source material?
But even then, surely it shouldn't be a binary choice. Surely there are anime fans who would prefer naturalistic, idiomatic, non-maximally-literal localizations just so long as they weren't politically biased? Indeed, I'd have naively guessed it'd be a majority of dub consumers; after all, surely purists who want textual fidelity above all else and are sufficiently well-versed in Japanese culture that they don't need to gloss a cultural nuance like "gyaru" as something more familiar to Americans would, in any case, prefer subs to dubs? So what's going on?
Side note: your example is kind of baffling to me; I've got one of the most left-wing social circles here and I've never heard anyone in my online circles treat "That's my girl" as some kind of taboo, inherently misogynistic phrase. My guess would be that the localizer, in this case, simply picked a common American phrase that people actually say in this situation over a purely literal translation so that the dialogue would sound natural. I agree the localizer could equally well have chosen "That's [FMC] for you", but I would assume that they happened to pick "That's my girl" because they viewed it as an equally innocuous, unremarkable idiom. Which it is. But eh, for all I know woke anime localizers might indeed be plugged into specific echo chambers where everyone agrees that "That's my girl" is an eeeevil microaggression; I merely caution you not to assume this is some kind of mainstream consensus on the Left. I'd never heard of it before.
(Like, yes, sure, if you get a critical theorist talking, they'll explain that the fact that we casually call grown women "girls" is belittling and a sign of structural sexism in the English language blah blah blah. But get a critical theorist talking about anything and they'll explain how it's secretly a tool of systemic oppression. "That's my girl" is not uniquely regarded as some sort of dogwhistle where if you make a cartoon character say it, it's supposed to immediately scan as a boo light signaling that they're an evil sexist. That's not a thing. Hell, search for "that's my girl" on Tumblr or Bluesky and you'll get tons of hits showing casual usage by very woke users!)
I can't imagine an American ever using that phrase in this situation. This was a male side character who is not close to the [FMC] in any meaningful way. At best he might say "That's our [FMC]." or maybe "That's our girl." since he is a younger member of the same large organization and she is a well-known celebrity in it. Had they had a closer relationship, "That's my girl" may have made sense--but then the Japanese phrasing would have been "Sasu ga [FMC]" or "Sasu ga [FMC]-chan" instead.
The problem isn't that it is inherently sexist, but that it can be interpreted as sexist and will be when the narrative demands it--ie, when criticizing the show and its male fans as sexist. That the fans reject it and it was added to the show will be conveniently ignored.
Wait, is the claim that the localizers would have inserted ostensibly sexist dialogue into the material as some sort of false-flag operation allowing them to then decry the work itself as problematic? This seems, uh, yet another claim from the more straightforward (and contradictory) accusation that some localizers alter dialogue to make the work itself seem more woke than it really is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link