Someone explain this to me. A main position held by both the left and right to justify censorship of media like videogames is cultivation theory even if the right wing censors don't use that terminology . The idea that media influences real life significantly by affecting the acceptance of its positively portrayed content. Most everyone here rejects this notion, not only because they don't believe in it, but because if it were true, combating the negative effects of media would require immeasurable and unfeasible levels of censorship. Cultivation theory is anti-free speech at its core. At the same time though, most here seem to recognize that vidya as propaganda is bad, and due to the left trying to turn vidya into propaganda, tend to see even minor things as propaganda, much like how cultivation theory treats all media. And it's true too, that they often do minor changes to make things "more progressive" as an attempt at propagandizing. So where is the line drawn between propaganda and cultivation theory?
How, if at all, does this change when games are aimed at younger and more impressionable audiences? I was upset years later that Ayla's sexual comments about Marle lactating and her sexual interest in Marle when they first meet were censored, along with two instances of alcohol use. But the game got ratings of E, E10+, and T. for the SNES, Wii, and PS3/PSP. Ordinarily if gay shit was put into a game that's rated E10 or lower, a good chunk here would see it as gay propaganda. And those few moments aside, the general level of the content of the game in terms of "mature" content roughly matches that rating. But no one would say Chrono Trigger pushes gay shit to any degree. Does whether it's titillating still factor into the determination of what anons think is homo propaganda if a game is largely aimed at kids? Does Japanese openness when exposing sexuality to younger audience play a role?