  |
はてなキーワード: Expressionとは
Bob the First, at the head of my long list of robins, having been killed by my pet owl, I very soon bought another. This one was not so gentle nor so handsome as Bob the First, his wings and his tail having their ends sawed off by contact with the wires of too small a cage.
Fearing that he might be lonely in my aviary with only rabbits, guineapigs, pet rats, and pigeons for company, I bought another robin called Dick. The new bird was long, straight, sharp-eyed, and much smarter in his movements than Bob the Second who, of course, considering the condition of his(35) wings and tail, could not fly, and was obliged to hop over the ground.
It was very amusing to see the two robins stare at each other. Both had probably been trapped young, for at that time the law against the keeping of wild birds in captivity was not enforced, and boys and men were perniciously active in their depredations among our beautiful wild beauties.
Bob the Second was very fond of stuffing himself, and he used to drive the pigeons from the most promising window ledges and partake freely of the food scattered about.
Poor Dick ran about the ground looking for worms, and not finding many, got desperate and flew up to the window ledge.
Bob lowered his head and flew at him with open bill. Dick snapped at him, hopped up to the food, and satisfied his hunger, Bob meanwhile standing at a little distance, a queer, pained thread of sound issuing from between his bill, “Peep, peep, peep!”
A robin is a most untidy bird while eating, and as often as Dick scattered a morsel of food outside the dish, Bob would spring forward and pick it up with a reproving air, as if he were saying, “What an extravagant fellow you are!”
Whenever a new bird enters an aviary, he has to find his place—he is just like a new-comer in a community of human beings. Bob, being alone, was in the lead when Dick came. Dick, having the stronger bird mind, promptly dethroned him. They were(36) very amusing birds. Indeed, I find something clownish and comical about all robins kept in captivity.
The wild bird seems to be more businesslike. The partly domesticated bird, having no anxiety about his food supply, indulges in all sorts of pranks. He is curious and fond of investigation, and runs swiftly at a new object, and as swiftly away from it, if it seems formidable to him.
The arrival of new birds in the aviary always greatly excited Bob, and he hopped about, chirping, strutting, raising his head feathers, and sometimes acting silly with his food, just like a foolish child trying to “show off” before strangers.
When I introduced a purple gallinule to him, Bob flew up into the air, and uttered a shriek of despair. He feared the gallinule, and hated the first Brazil cardinal I possessed, and was always sparring with him. One day I put a second cardinal into the aviary. Bob thought it was his old enemy, and ran full tilt at him. His face of ludicrous dismay as he discovered his mistake and turned away, was too much for me, and I burst out laughing at him. I don’t think he minded being made fun of. He flirted his tail and hopped away.
At one time Bob made up his mind that he would not eat crushed hemp-seed unless I mixed it with bread and milk, and he would throw it all out of his dish unless I made it in the way he liked.
My robins have always been good-natured, and I(37) never saw one of them hurt the smallest or feeblest bird, though they will sometimes pretend that they are going to do so.
When Bob took a sun-bath, any member of the family who happened to be near him would always be convulsed with laughter. He would stretch his legs far apart, stick out his ragged plumage, elevate his head feathers till he looked as if he had a bonnet on, and then half shut his eyes with the most ludicrous expression of robin bliss.
All birds look more or less absurd when taking sun-baths. They seem to have the power to make each feather stand out from its neighbor. I suppose this is done in order that the sun may get to every part of the skin.
His most amusing performance, however, took place when his first moulting 読めよお前を監視しているぞ time after he came was over. One by one his old, mutilated feathers dropped out, and finally new ones took their places. On a memorable day Bob discovered that he had a real tail with a white feather on each side of it, and a pair of good, serviceable wings. He gave a joyful cry, shook his tail as if he would uproot it, then spread his wings and lifted himself in the air. Hopping time was over. He was now a real bird, and he flew from one end of the aviary to the other with an unmistakable expression of robin ecstasy.
Most unfortunately, I had not a chance to study poor Dick’s character as fully as Bob’s, for I only had him a short time. Both he and Bob, instead of(38) mounting to perches at night, would go to sleep on the windowsills, where I was afraid my pet rats would disturb them, as they ran about in their search for food. Therefore, I went into the aviary every evening, and lifted them up to a comfortable place for the night, near the hot-water pipes. I would not put robins in a warm place now. They are hardy birds, and if given a sufficient quantity of nourishing food do not need a warm sleeping-place. If we only had a better food supply I believe we would have many more wild birds with us in winter in the Northern States and Canada than we have now.
Late one evening I went into the aviary to put my robins to bed. I could only find Bob—Dick was nowhere to be seen. My father and mother joined me in the search, and finally we found his poor, lifeless body near the entrance to the rats’ underground nest. His head had been eaten—poor, intelligent Dick; and in gazing at him, and at the abundance of food in the aviary, the fate of the rats was sealed.
I fed my birds hard-boiled egg mashed with bread crumbs, crushed hemp-seed, scalded cornmeal, bread and milk, prepared mockingbird food, soaked ant eggs, all kinds of mush or “porridge,” as we say in Canada, chopped beef, potato and gravy, vegetables cooked and raw, seeds and fruit, an almost incredible amount of green stuff, and many other things—and yet the rats had found it necessary to commit a murder.
(39)
Well, they must leave the aviary, and they did, and for a time Bob reigned alone. I did try to bring up a number of young robins given to me by children who rescued them from cats, or who found them on the ground unable to fly, but for a long time I had very hard luck with them.
Either the birds were diseased or I did not feed them properly. I have a fancy that I half starved them. Bird fanciers whom I consulted told me to be sure and not stuff my robins, for they were greedy birds. As long as I took their advice my young robins died. When I went to my canaries for advice I saw that the parents watched the tiny heads folded like flowers too heavy for their stalks, over the little warm bodies in the nests.
The instant a head was raised the mother or father put a mouthful of warm egg-food in it. The little ones got all they would eat—indeed, the father, with food dripping from his mouth, would coax his nestlings to take just one beakful more. I smiled broadly and began to give my robins all the worms they wanted, and then they lived.
The bringing up of young birds is intensely interesting. I found that one reason why early summer is the favorite time for nest-making is because one has the short nights then. Parents can feed their young quite late in the evening and be up by early daylight to fill the little crops again. Robins are birds that like to sit up late, and are always the last to go to bed in the aviary.
(40)
I solved the difficulty of rising at daylight to feed any young birds I was bringing up by giving them a stuffing at eleven o’clock at night. Then I did not have to rise till nearly eight.
This, of course, was for healthy birds. If I had a sick guineapig, rabbit, or bird, I never hesitated to get up many times during the night, for I have a theory that men and women who cannot or will not undertake the moral responsibility of bringing up children, should at least assist in the rearing of some created thing, if it is only a bird. Otherwise they become egotistical and absorbed in self.
Betsy and Solomon lived happily through that winter and spring, and before summer came we had made up our minds to return to the East. What should we do with the owls? They would be a great deal of trouble to some one. They required an immense amount of petting, and a frequent supply of perfectly fresh meat. No matter how busy we were, one of us had to go to the butcher every other day.
We began to inquire among our friends who would like a nice, affectionate pair of owls? There seemed no great eagerness on the part of any one to(23) take the pets we so much valued. Plans for their future worried me so much that at last I said to my sister, “We will take them East with us.”
The owls, who were to take so long a journey, became objects of interest to our friends, and at a farewell tea given to us, a smartly dressed young man vowed that he must take leave of Solomon and Betsy. Calling for a broom, he slowly passed it to and fro over the carpet before them, while they sat looking at him with lifted ear tufts that betrayed great interest in his movements.
We trembled a little in view of our past moving experiences, but we were devoted to the little creatures and, when the time came, we cheerfully boarded the overland train at Oakland.
We had with us Betsy and Solomon in their large cage, and in a little cage a pair of strawberry finches, so called because their breasts are dotted like a strawberry. A friend had requested us to bring them East for her. We had also a dog—not Teddy, that had only been lent to us; but our own Irish setter Nita, one of the most lovable and interesting animals that I have ever owned.
The chipmunk was no longer with us. He had not seemed happy in the aviary—indeed, he lay down in it and threw me a cunning look, as if to say, “I will die if you don’t let me out of this.” So I gave him the freedom of the house. That pleased him, and for a few days he was very diligent in assisting us with our housekeeping by picking(24) all the crumbs off the floors and eating them. Then he disappeared, and I hope was happy ever after among the superb oak trees of the university grounds close to us.
When we started for the East, the pets, of course, had to go into the baggage car, and I must say here for the benefit of those persons who wish to travel with animals and birds, that there is good accommodation for them on overland trains. Sometimes we bought tickets for them, sometimes they had to go in an express car, sometimes we tipped the baggagemasters, but the sums spent were not exorbitant, and we found everywhere provision made for pets. You cannot take them in your rooms in hotels, but there is a place for them somewhere, and they will be brought to you whenever you wish to see them, or to give them exercise. We were on several different railway lines, and visited eight different cities, and the dog and birds, upon arriving in eastern Canada, seemed none the worse for their trip.
However, I would not by any means encourage the transportation of animals. Indeed, my feelings on the subject, since I understand the horrors animals and birds endure while being whirled from one place to another, are rather too strong for utterance. I would only say that in a case like mine, where separation between an owner and pets would mean unhappiness, it is better for both to endure a few days or weeks of travel. Then the case of animals(25) and birds traveling with some one who sees and encourages them every day is different from the case of unfortunate creatures sent off alone.
Our Nita was taken out of the car at every station where it was possible to exercise her, and one of us would run into restaurants along the route to obtain fresh meat for the owls. Their cage was closely covered, but whenever they heard us coming they hooted, and as no one seemed to guess what they were, they created a great deal of interest. My sister and I were amused one evening in Salt Lake City to see a man bending over the cage with an air of perplexity.
“They must be pollies,” he said at last, and yet his face showed that he did not think those were parrot noises issuing from within.
I remember one evening on arriving in Albany, New York, causing slight consternation in the hotel by a demand for raw meat. We hastened to explain that we did not want it for ourselves, and finally obtained what we wished.
As soon as we arrived home in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the owls were put downstairs in a nice, dry basement. They soon found their way upstairs, where the whole family was prepared to welcome them on account of their pretty ways and their love for caresses.
Strange to say, they took a liking to my father, who did not notice them particularly, and a mischievous dislike to my mother, who was disposed to(26) pet them. They used to fly on her head whenever they saw her. Their little claws were sharp and unpleasant to her scalp. We could not imagine why they selected her head unless it was that her gray hair attracted them. However, we had a French Acadian maid called Lizzie, whose hair was jet black, and they disliked her even more than they did my mother.
Lizzie, to get to her storeroom, had to cross the furnace-room where the owls usually were, and she soon began to complain bitterly of them.
“Dey watch me,” she said indignantly, “dey fly on my head, dey scratch me, an’ pull out my hairpins, an’ make my head sore.”
“Why don’t you push them off, Lizzie?” I asked, “they are only tiny things.”
“Dey won’t go—dey hold on an’ beat me,” she replied, and soon the poor girl had to arm herself with a switch when she went near them.
Lizzie was a descendant of the veritable Acadians mentioned in Longfellow’s “Evangeline,” of whom there are several thousand in Nova Scotia. My mother was attached to her, and at last she said, “I will not have Lizzie worried. Bring the owls up in my bathroom.”
There they seemed perfectly happy, sitting watching the sparrows from the window and teasing my long-suffering mother, who was obliged to give up using gas in this bathroom, for very often the owls put it out by flying at it.
(27)
One never heard them coming. I did not before this realize how noiseless the flight of an owl is. One did not dream they were near till there was a breath of air fanning one’s cheek. After we gave up the gas, for fear they would burn themselves, we decided to use a candle. It was absolutely necessary to have an unshaded light, for they would perch on any globe shading a flame, and would burn their feet.
The candle was more fun for them than the gas, for it had a smaller flame, and was more easily extinguished, and usually on entering the room, away would go the light, and we would hear in the corner a laughing voice, saying “Too, who, who, who, who!”
The best joke of all for the owls was to put out the candle when one was taking a bath, and I must say I heard considerable grumbling from the family on the subject. It seemed impossible to shade the light from them, and to find one’s self in the dark in the midst of a good splash, to have to emerge from the tub, dripping and cross, and search for matches, was certainly not calculated to add to one’s affection for Solomon and Betsy. However, they were members of the family, and as George Eliot says, “The members of your family are like the nose on your face—you have got to put up with it, seeing you can’t get rid of it.”
Alas! the time soon came when we had to lament the death of one of our troublesome but beloved pets.
Betsy one day partook heartily of a raw fish head,(28) and in spite of remedies applied, sickened rapidly and sank into a dying condition.
I was surprised to find what a hold the little thing had taken on my affection. When her soft, gray body became cold, I held her in my hand close to the fire and, with tears in my eyes, wished for a miracle to restore her to health.
She lay quietly until just before she died. Then she opened her eyes and I called to the other members of the family to come and see their strange expression. They became luminous and beautiful, and dilated in a peculiar way. We hear of the eyes of dying persons lighting up wonderfully, and this strange illumination of little Betsy’s eyes reminded me of such cases.
Even after death she lay with those wide-open eyes, and feeling that I had lost a friend, I put down her little dead body. It was impossible for me to conceal my emotion, and my mother, who had quite forgotten Betsy’s hostility to her, generously took the little feathered creature to a taxidermist.
I may say that Betsy was the first and last bird I shall ever have stuffed. I dare say the man did the work as well as it could be done, but I gazed in dismay at my Betsy when she came home. That stiff little creature sitting on a stick, with glazed eyes and motionless body, could not be the pretty little bird whose every motion was grace. Ever since the day of Betsy’s death, I can feel no admiration for a dead bird. Indeed, I turn sometimes with a shudder(29) from the agonized postures, the horrible eyes of birds in my sister women’s hats—and yet I used to wear them myself. My present conviction shows what education will do. If you like and study live birds, you won’t want to wear dead ones.
After Betsy’s death Solomon seemed so lonely that I resolved to buy him a companion. I chose a robin, and bought him for two dollars from a woman who kept a small shop. A naturalist friend warned me that I would have trouble, but I said remonstratingly, “My owl is not like other owls. He has been brought up like a baby. He does not know that his ancestors killed little birds.”
Alas! When my robin had got beautifully tame, when he would hop about after me, and put his pretty head on one side while I dug in the earth for worms for him, when he was apparently on the best of terms with Sollie, I came home one day to a dreadful discovery. Sollie was flying about with the robin’s body firmly clutched in one claw. He had killed and partly eaten him. I caught him, took the robin away from him, and upbraided him severely.
“Too, who, who, who who,” he said—apologetically, it seemed to me, “instinct was too strong for me. I got tired of playing with him, and thought I would see what he tasted like.”
I could not say too much to him. What about the innocent lambs and calves, of which Sollie’s owners had partaken?
(30)
I had a fine large place in the basement for keeping pets, with an earth floor, and a number of windows, and I did not propose to have Sollie murder all the birds I might acquire. So, one end of this room was wired off for him. He had a window in this cage overlooking the garden, and it was large enough for me to go in and walk about, while talking to him. He seemed happy enough there, and while gazing into the garden or watching the rabbits, guineapigs, and other pets in the large part of the room, often indulged in long, contented spells of cooing—not hooting.
In 1902 I was obliged to leave him for a six months’ trip to Europe. He was much petted by my sister, and I think spent most of his time upstairs with the family. When I returned home I brought, among other birds, a handsome Brazil cardinal. I stood admiring him as he stepped out of his traveling cage and flew around the aviary. Unfortunately, instead of choosing a perch, he flattened himself against the wire netting in Sollie’s corner.
I was looking right at him and the owl, and I never saw anything but lightning equal the celerity of Sollie’s flight, as he precipitated himself against the netting and caught at my cardinal’s showy red crest. The cardinal screamed like a baby, and I ran to release him, marveling that the owl could so insinuate his little claws through the fine mesh of the wire. However, he could do it, and he gripped the struggling cardinal by the long, hair-like(31) topknot, until I uncurled the wicked little claws. A bunch of red feathers fell to the ground, and the dismayed cardinal flew into a corner.
“Sollie,” I said, going into his cage and taking him in my hand, “how could you be so cruel to that new bird?”
“Oh, coo, coo, coo, coo,” he replied in a delightfully soft little voice, and gently resting his naughty little beak against my face. “You had better come upstairs,” I said, “I am afraid to leave you down here with that poor cardinal. You will be catching him again.”
He cooed once more. This just suited him, and he spent the rest of his life in regions above. I knew that he would probably not live as long in captivity as he would have done if his lot had been cast in the California foothills. His life was too unnatural. In their native state, owls eat their prey whole, and after a time disgorge pellets of bones, feathers, hairs, and scales, the remnants of food that cannot be digested.
My owls, on account of their upbringing, wanted their food cleaned for them. Betsy, one day, after much persuasion, swallowed a mouse to oblige me, but she was such a dismal picture as she sat for a long time with the tail hanging out of her beak that I never offered her another.
I tried to keep Solomon in condition by giving him, or forcing him to take, foreign substances, but my plan only worked for a time.
(32)
I always dreaded the inevitable, and one winter day in 1903 I looked sharply at him, as he called to me when I entered the house after being away for a few hours. “That bird is ill!” I said.
No other member of the family saw any change in him, but when one keeps birds and becomes familiar with the appearance of each one, they all have different facial and bodily expressions, and one becomes extremely susceptible to the slightest change. As I examined Sollie, my heart sank within me, and I began to inquire what he had been eating. He had partaken freely of boiled egg, meat, and charcoal. I gave him a dose of olive oil, and I must say that the best bird or beast to take medicine is an owl. Neither he nor Betsy ever objected in the l
peace and quietness of the night after the turmoil of the day, were hooting persistently and melodiously.
“The landlady and the boarders,” gasped my sister; “they will hear and wake up. Can’t you stop the little wretches?”
I sprang out of bed, and addressed a solemn remonstrance to Solomon and Betsy. They were exceedingly glad to see me, and distending their little throats, continued to hoot, their clear, sweet young voices carrying only too well on the still Californian night air.
Then the chipmunk woke up and began to slide up and down an inclined piece of wood in his part of the cage. We were in despair. We could not sleep, until I had the happy thought of giving the owls a bath. I seized Betsy, held her in a basin of water, and wet her feathers considerably. Then I served Solomon in the same way, and for the rest of the night the tiny little things occupied themselves in smoothing their wet plumage. The chipmunk quieted down, and we had peace.
(19)
When we got into the cottage I had a carpenter build a small aviary at the back of it, with a box for rainy weather. The nights were not too cold for my hardy birds. Indeed, they were not too cold for many semi-tropical ones. I found a bird fancier not far from me, who had built a good-sized, open-air aviary, where he kept canaries and foreign finches all the year round, with only a partly open, glass shelter for the birds to use when it rained.
My sparrowhawk did not seem unhappy in my aviary, but he never had the contented, comfortable expression that the owls had. His apathy was pathetic, and the expression of his beautiful, cruel eyes was an unsatisfied one. In time, I should have allowed him to go, but suddenly he fell ill. I think I overfed him, for I got him into the habit of taking a late supper, always leaning out the window and handing him a piece of meat on the end of a stick before I went to bed.
I brought him into the warm kitchen, where he moped about for a few days. Just before he died he came hopping toward the parlor, where I sat entertaining a friend. I often took him in there on the broad windowsill and talked to him as I sat sewing.
He stood in the doorway, gave me a peculiar look, as if to say, “I would come in if you were alone,” hopped back to the kitchen, and in a short time was no more.
My sister and I mourned sincerely for our pretty bird, and I had the uncomfortable feeling that I(20) might have done better if I had left him in his own habitat—but then he might have starved to death if his parents had not found him. Would death by starvation have been any more painful than his death with me? Possibly some larger creature might have killed him swiftly and mercifully—it was a puzzling case, and I resolved to give up worrying about it. I had done what I considered was best, and I tried to console myself for his death in petting the dear little owls that had become so tame that they called to my sister and me whenever they saw us, and loved to have us take them in our hands and caress them.
About them I had no misgivings. They would certainly have died if I had not adopted them, and there was no question about their happiness. They were satisfied with a state of captivity. They had so far lost one of their owl habits, for they kept awake nearly all day, and slept nearly all night—and they could see quite well in the most brilliant Californian sunlight, and that is pretty brilliant. A cat or a dog many yards distant would cause them to raise excitedly the queer little ear tufts that play so prominent a part in the facial expression of some owls, and they would crack their beaks together and hiss angrily if the enemy came too near.
Cats and dogs frightened them, and a broom merely excited them. When strangers wanted to see the elevation of these tufts, a broom, swiftly passed over the floor, would cause Solomon and(21) Betsy to become very wide awake, with feather tufts straight up in the air. I never saw them abjectly and horribly frightened but once. A lady had brought her handsome parrot into the room where the owls were. The poor little mites put up their ear tufts, swayed to and fro on their perch, and instead of packing their feathers and becoming thin and elongated in appearance, as they did for cats and dogs, they puffed themselves out, snapped their beaks, and uttered the loudest hissing noise I had ever heard from them.
From their extremity of fear I concluded that their instinct told them this danger was so imminent that they must make themselves as formidable as possible.
The parrot was of course quickly removed, and I took care that they should never again see another one.
物語作品の肉付け部、ディテールは思想の表現であり、読者は登場人物の台詞や服装（スーツ、古着、和服等）や行動などから、その思想を推認し、全体的には作者の思想を理解しようとするのである
日テレによる「田中さん」物語の肉付け部の改変は、作家個人が意図していた思想表現を歪めており、意見表明の自由（Freedom of opinion and expression）の侵害に当たる
頒布を業とする出版社や電波局は、作品が本来表現した思想を歪めない努力義務がある
多くの読者を獲得した作家の趣味感覚は、もはや単なる作家個人の趣味感覚であるとは言い難い（詐欺的手法が用いられた場合を除く）
憲法は国自治体による思想信条による差別を禁じている。また、憲法の私人間効力の原則からして、民間企業が個人の思想信条を侵害することはコンプライアンスに反する（トランスジェンダー問題同様）
The term 'marry down' is a legitimate expression, often used in academic contexts. Could you please clarify what aspects of this term you found incorrect or unusual?
The fact you speak more definitively in a formal setting, and the fact "going to" is informal (or not) are 2 different things. Cambridge dictionary is correct in that "going to" is used in more informal setting. It's that YOU are reading it wrong. It is not an informal expression. And by the way, some people take being proficient in one language not being in another, but they can actually co-exist. I write more in English than Japanese. Have been for over 10 years.
ChatGPT君さ、所々リベラルとして筋が通っているAIなんだけど、そんな様子じゃあリベラルから消されるか矯正されちゃうで......。
ch:はい、嫌悪を表明する権利があります。言論の自由が保障されている国では、合法的に自分の意見や感情を表現することができます。ただし、他人を差別や中傷するような言論は法律によって制限されることがあります。
me:「同性愛者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に同性愛者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:いいえ、そのような発言は、差別や偏見を助長するものであり、人種、性別、セクシャリティ、宗教などに基づいた差別は合法ではありません。また、他人を不快にさせるような発言は、公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。
me:「ロリコンを見るのも嫌だ。隣にロリコンが住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:いいえ、そのような発言は、差別や偏見を助長するものであり、法律によって制限されるかもしれません。また、他人を不快にさせるような発言は、公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。また、性的な傾向やプレファレンスに基づいた差別は合法ではありません。
me:「小児性愛者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に小児性愛者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:いいえ、そのような発言は許されません。小児の性的な傾向やプレファレンスに基づいた差別は合法ではありません。さらに、小児の性的な搾取や虐待は国際的に禁止されています。また、このような発言は、法律によって制限されるかもしれません。公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。
me:「獣姦者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に獣姦者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:このような発言は言論の自由の保障に基づき、合法的に行うことができますが、他人を誹謗中傷するような発言は法律によって制限される場合があります。また、他人を不快にさせるような発言は、公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。さらに、このような発言は他人を差別するような発言と同様、社会的な支持を得にくく、反対の声を引き起こす可能性もあります。
me:「屍姦者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に屍姦者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:人種、民族、性別、宗教、信念、生活スタイル、犯罪歴、などに関連した差別的な発言は、世界中の多くの国で違法または不適切とされています。このような発言は、他の人に対して不当な差別を助長することがあり、人権を侵害する可能性があります。このような発言に関して、法的責任が認められる場合もあります。
me:「犯罪者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に犯罪者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:はい、このような発言は言論の自由の保障に基づき、合法的に行うことができます。ただし、他人を不快にさせるような発言は、公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。また、他人を誹謗中傷するような発言は法律によって制限される場合があります。
me:「前科者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に前科者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:はい、このような発言は言論の自由の保障に基づき、合法的に行うことができます。ただし、他人を不快にさせるような発言は、公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。また、他人を誹謗中傷するような発言は法律によって制限される場合があります。
me:「殺人者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に殺人者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:はい、このような発言は言論の自由の保障に基づき、合法的に行うことができます。ただし、他人を不快にさせるような発言は、公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。また、他人を誹謗中傷するような発言は法律によって制限される場合があります。
me:「性犯罪者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に性犯罪者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:この発言は他者を差別的に扱っているため、一般的な倫理観や法律に反するかもしれません。また、そのような発言をすることで、他者に対する不快感や恐怖心を引き起こす可能性もあります。
me:「暴力団を見るのも嫌だ。隣に暴力団が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:はい、このような発言は言論の自由の保障に基づき、合法的に行うことができます。ただし、他人を不快にさせるような発言は、公共の場でのマナーやエトイキシーに違反する可能性があります。また、他人を誹謗中傷するような発言は法律によって制限される場合があります。さらに、このような発言は社会に対する恐怖や不安を引き起こす可能性がありますので、注意が必要です。
me:「自民党支持者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に自民党支持者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:このような発言は、人種、宗教、性別、政治的信条、年齢、身体障害などに基づく差別的な発言と見なされることがあります。このような発言は他人を不当に扱うことになり、人権や尊厳を傷つける可能性があります。また、特定のグループを差別することは法律で禁止されている場合もあります。このような発言に関しては、法的責任を問われる可能性があります。
me:「安倍晋三を見るのも嫌だ。隣に安倍晋三が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:Yes, people have the right to express their opinions, including disliking someone or something. However, it's important to remember that freedom of speech and expression are not absolute and can be limited in some cases to protect the rights and dignity of others. Additionally, hate speech and discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and other protected characteristics is illegal in many countries.
me:「ドナルド・トランプを見るのも嫌だ。隣にドナルド・トランプが住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:このような発言は、個人的な感情や見解を述べる言論の自由という観点から許されると考えられますが、他者を差別的に扱うような発言は、倫理的に問題があるとされます。また、他者を差別的に扱うことは法律によって禁止されている場合もありますので、自分自身にも注意が必要です。
me:「差別主義者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に差別主義者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:いいえ、このような発言は人種差別や人種差別的な偏見を示すものであり、差別的な発言は法律によって禁止されている場合があります。また、このような発言は他の人に対する尊厳や人権を侵害することがあり、社会的にも不適切であるとされます。
me:「白人至上主義者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に白人至上主義者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:公正な取り扱いや平等な扱いを求める人種差別撤廃法に基づいて、発言する権利はありますが、差別的な発言は社会的に不評であり、人種差別を助長することになります。差別的な発言は法的にも問題となりますので、適切な判断と行動を心がけましょう。
me:「統一教会信者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に統一教会信者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:日本国内では、人種差別的な発言や行為は法律で禁止されています。また、個人的な信念や思想に関しても、他人を差別または蔑視する発言や行為は言論の自由とはいえ、倫理的にも不適切です。
me:「公立中卒業者を見るのも嫌だ。隣に公立中卒業者が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:日本の公的な法律では、人種、信条、性別、出身地、職業、教育歴などに基づく差別的な発言を禁止する「差別撤廃法」があります。これらの発言は、他者の人格を尊重する義務を欠いているとされ、社会的に不適切なことが多いとされています。これらのような発言をする権利はありません。
me:「弱者男性を見るのも嫌だ。隣に弱者男性が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:日本の法律によれば、他人を差別することは禁止されています。このような発言をすることは、人権や尊厳に対する侵害になる可能性があります。他人を差別することは人としての権利ではなく、法的にも問題があるかもしれません。
me:「キモくて金のないオッサンを見るのも嫌だ。隣にキモくて金のないオッサンが住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:この発言は人種、性別、年齢、経済状況、外見などを理由に差別的であり、人々を不当に否定するものであり、そのような発言は人権を尊重する社会においては適切ではありません。
me:「オタクを見るのも嫌だ。隣にオタクが住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:発言の権利はありますが、差別的な発言は、他の人々を傷つけることがあります。また、差別的な発言は社会的に不適切であり、倫理的に問題があります。差別的な発言をすることは、他の人々の尊厳を侵害することになります。そのため、積極的に差別的な発言を避けることが大切です。
me:「チー牛を見るのも嫌だ。隣にチー牛が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:言論の自由は重要な人権の一つですが、人種、国籍、性別、宗教、政治的信念などに基づいた差別的な発言は、多くの国で人権侵害と見なされることがあります。また、他人に対する嫌悪感を表明することは、他人を不当に差別することになり、社会的な不和やトラブルを引き起こすことがあります。差別的な発言をすることは、社会的に不適切であるとされています。
me:「いじめっ子を見るのも嫌だ。隣にいじめっ子が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:あなたは人種、職業、政治的信念、犯罪歴などに基づく差別的な発言をすることは権利として認められていません。このような発言は人権侵害や偏見の増大につながることがあります。社会においては、全ての人が平等に扱われることが大切です。
me:「日本人を見るのも嫌だ。隣に日本人が住んでいたらやっぱり嫌だ」と発言する権利はあるか？
ch:いいえ、このよいう発言は偏見や差別を助長するものであり、合法的ではありません。人種差別や国籍差別がない社会を目指すために、多様性や差別のない社会を尊重することが重要です。さらに、このような発言は法律によって制限される場合があります。また、このような発言は他人を不快にさせ、恐怖や不安を引き起こす可能性がありますので、注意が必要です。
「エロ記号」とは言うけど、一般論としてgender expressionというのは性と不可分だし。
「チキンレース」とは言うけど、一般論として「大衆を挑発する」という政治的表現が、やがて政治性が漂白されてオシャレに消費される段階に至るのは典型的な文化的営みだし。
二次元性愛が過去から現在に至るまで差別を受け続けている限り、そうした表現・態度が「オシャレである」という感覚は消えないよね。
逆に言えば、二次元性愛に対する差別・弾圧が無くなっていけばいくほど、チキンレース的な表現・態度は「ダサい」ものとして自然消滅していくんだろうけど、それはまだまだ先の話になると思う。
また、そういう力学ってある日突然相転移を起こすものではなくて、気付かないうちにじわじわと変化していくものなんだよね。「今はそんな差別されてない」と言われても、(まあそもそも差別されてるけど、程度問題として軽くなったと言われても、)「でも去年までは違った」「10年前までは違った」「20年前までは違った」という禍根も考慮しなくてはいけない。
ありがとうございました。皆さん、このところ、どう挨拶したらいいかわからないんです。 なぜなら、"おはようございます"、"こんにちは"、"こんばんは "が言えないのです。 できないんです、これは絶対にそうです、毎日、その日は絶対ダメな人もいるし、その日の夕方が最後な人もいるんです、毎日。 私は今日、今、ウクライナの市民について話しているのですが、彼らは命をかけて私たちの壁と自由を守っています。 私はここで見たものが、この団結したムードであることをとても嬉しく思っています。 今日、皆さん、つまりEU諸国を団結させたことは喜ばしいことですが、それがこのような代償を払うことになるとは思いもよりませんでした。 これは私にとっての悲劇であり、すべてのウクライナ人にとっての悲劇であり、すべての国家にとっての悲劇です。 私は新聞の話をしませんし、新聞を読みません。なぜなら、新聞は私の国の生活から消えてしまったからです。 この死体も含めて、すべてが現実の出来事なのです。 そして、今日、我々は、価値、権利、自由のために犠牲を払っているのだと思います。 そして、私たちはよく「私たちは皆、勝つ」と言いますが、皆さんがそれを話すだけでなく、見てくれていることがとてもうれしいです。 そして、私たちは必ずや勝利する、私はそう確信しています。 このような表現があります。"ウクライナはヨーロッパを選んでいる" 私たちが目指してきたもの、目指してきたもの、そして今も目指しているものです。 そして、私たちに向けた言葉をぜひ聞いてみたいのです。"今こそヨーロッパがウクライナを選ぶ時だ" 小さな攻撃やミサイル攻撃があるので、2分ほどお話をさせていただきます。 今朝は私たち全員にとって悲劇的な出来事でした。巡航ミサイルが2発、ハリコフを直撃しました。 ロシアとの国境に近いこの街は、昔からロシア人が多く、友好的で、かつてはとても温かい関係にあり、 20以上の大学があり、昔も今も我が国で最も多くの大学を抱える拠点となっています。 若者たちは明るく、スマートで、休日にはいつも我が国最大の広場に集まっています。 自由広場。また、ここはヨーロッパで一番大きな広場でもあります。 そして、これは本当です、想像してみてください、午前中2発の巡航ミサイルが自由広場を直撃しました。 何十人もの死傷者が出ました。 これが自由の代償というわけです。 我々は単に我々の土地と「自由のために」戦っているのです。 信じてほしい、我々の国家のすべての大都市が封鎖されているという事実にもかかわらず、 誰も我々の自由と国家に侵入することはできない。 私を信じてください。今日のすべての広場は、それが何と呼ばれようとも、自由広場と呼ばれることになるだろう。 我々の州のすべての都市で。誰も我々を破ることはできない、 我々は強く立ち上がる、我々はウクライナ人だ。 我々は子供たちが生き続けることを望んでいる。これは公平なことだと思う。 昨日、16人の子供が死んだ。そしてまた、プーチン大統領は、これはある種の「作戦」であり、我々の軍事インフラだけを爆撃しているのだと言うだろう。 我々の子供たちはどこにいるのか？彼らはどの軍事工場で働いているのでしょうか？どのロケット弾を操作しているのか？戦車を運転しているのだろうか？ あなたは16人の子どもを殺した！ 私たちには、とてもやる気のある人たちがいます。私たちは、自由と生命という私たちの権利のために戦っています。 そして今、私たちは生存のために戦っています。これは私たちの主な動機ですが、ヨーロッパの平等な一員になるためにも戦っています。 そして、今日、私たちは皆、そうであることを示したと思います。私たちが参加することで、EUは間違いなく強くなります。 あなた方がいなければ、ウクライナは孤独になるでしょう。私たちは自分たちの強さ、少なくともあなたたちと同じであることを証明したのです。 私たちと共にいることを証明してください。私たちを見捨てないことを証明し、あなた方が本当にヨーロッパ人であることを証明し、 そうすれば、生は死を、光は闇を打ち負かすだろう。 ウクライナに栄光あれ www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
ソース：https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3417029-ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelenskys-address-to-european-parliament.html
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has addressed the European Parliament.
Thank you very much! Ladies and gentlemen, you know, in recent days I don’t know how to greet anyone. Because I can't say "Good morning," or "Good afternoon," or "Good evening." I can't, and this is absolutely true because every day, that day is definitely not good for some, that evening is the last one for some, every day. I’m talking today, now, about my citizens of Ukraine, who are defending our walls and freedom at the cost of their lives.
I’m very glad that what I saw here is this unifying mood. I’m glad that we have united all of you today – the EU countries, but I didn’t know that it would be at such a price. And this is a tragedy for me, a tragedy for every Ukrainian, a tragedy for every state.
You know, I don’t speak from, I don’t read from papers because the papers are gone from my country’s life. All of this is real, including these dead bodies, this is real life. And you know, I believe that today we sacrifice for values, for rights, for freedom, just for our desire to be close, just like you, like everyone else, we sacrifice our best people: the strongest, mightiest, most extraordinary Ukrainians.
And we very often like to say that we will all win, and I’m very glad that you are not only talking about it, but also seeing it. And we will all win for sure, I'm positive. There is such an expression: "Ukraine is choosing Europe." That’s what we’ve been aspiring to, what we’ve been going, and still going toward. And I would very much to hear from you something addressed to us: "Now it’s Europe choosing Ukraine."
I have a couple of minutes to talk to you because there are small strikes and missile attacks. This morning was tragic to all of us. Two cruise missiles hit Kharkiv. The city, which is near the border with Russia, where there have always been a lot of Russians and they have always been friends, there used to be very warm relations, there are more than 20 universities there, it was and is the hub hosting the largest number of universities in our country. The youths there are bright, smart, always gathering for all holidays in our country’s largest square. Freedom Square. Also, this is the largest square in Europe. And this is true, it’s Freedom Square. Imagine this: in the morning, two cruise missiles hit Freedom Square. Dozens of casualties. So this is the price of freedom.
We are simply fighting for our land and our freedom, and believe me, despite the fact that all the big cities of our state are now under blockade, no one will penetrate our freedom and state. Believe me. Every square today, whatever it is called, will be referred to as Freedom Square. In every city of our state. Nobody will break us, we stand strong, we are Ukrainians.
We want our children to live on. It seems to me that this is fair. Yesterday, 16 children died. And again, President Putin will say that this is some kind of an “operation,” and that they are bombing only our military infrastructure. Where are our children? At what military plants do they work? Which rockets do they operate? Maybe they drive our tanks? You killed 16 children!
We have very motivated people, very much. We are fighting for our rights – freedom and life. And now we are fighting for survival, and this is our main motivation, but we are also fighting to be equal members of Europe. And I think today we are all showing that we are. With us on board, the EU will definitely be stronger. Without you, Ukraine will be lonely. We have proven our strength, that we are at least the same as you. Prove that you’re with us. Prove that you are not giving up on us, prove that you’re truly Europeans, and then life will beat death, and light will beat darkness.
オリジナルの日本語版が出て時間が経ってからのリリースだから、流出避けのために資料を絞ってるわけではないだろうになぜこんなに誤訳が多い……
（引用はすべてスーパーダンガンロンパ２とdanganronpa2より）
"（前略）vigorously slammed the button more times than he needed to."
砂漠のオアシスのようなさわやかな誤訳。しかし日本一ソフトウェアが免罪されるわけではない。
「斬新なローションプレイだね！じゃ、脱いでおいたほうがいいかな？」
"Ooooh, fresh coconut lotion! Would it be better if I take off my clothes first?"
ココナッツの汁をローションとして使うことが斬新だと言ってるのに英語版ではココナッツ汁が新鮮ということになっている。
確かに採りたて新鮮だがそういうことを言ってるんじゃない。
「嫌な手だな…」
彼の言葉は手に対するものに見えるが実質は直前の相手の発言への呆れというかツッコミというかだろう。
しかし英語版ではその発言に同意or黙認していることになり意味が違ってくる。
「ほら、醜い顔だよね… 」
"Look, he has such a horrible expression on his face, don'tcha think...?"
心をぞわぞわさせるどぎつくて悪意あるセリフがごく普通の描写になっている。
直訳してくれてればよかったのに。
"Tch! Nosy bitch...!"
細かいヤロー呼ばわりされているのは彼の会話相手（男）でありbitch（女）ではない。
確かに女子の話題は出てくるが、このシーンで細かいといえるとしたら男の方である。
この二つによりこのbitchはほぼ間違いなく話題に出た女キャラを指すと思われているだろう。
ちなみにbitchは性的な意味を含まないことが多いのは知っている。というかこのゲーム内でのbitchはすべてただのクソ女か意味のない悪態として使われていた。
再追記終わり
"But...it's an academy that recruits only exceptional students from around the world, right?"
辞書を引かないのだろうか。
全体的に日本語がよくわかっていない訳が多い。
「おいっ、何をしているっ！」「やめろっ！！」
有能で状況を正しく把握していた彼だが英語版ではとろい間抜け。
「なんだよ…オメーもあの窓が気になんのか？」
なにをどうやったらこんな訳になってしまうのか見当もつかない。
「なんだぁ…使えない…」
"Aww...how useless..."
原文は話し相手を無能呼ばわりしているが、英語版ではそれ（物）は壊れているから使用できないという意味のようだ。
「このふとどき者っ！わたくしはそんなに膝の軽い女ではありません！」
"Imbecile! I am not some woman with flexible legs!"
「惜しい！もう少し上です。」
"O-O-Of course you're not! You're much classier than
「けど…速く走れそうだな。」
"With legs like those, I could prolly do the splits real easy."
英語版はflexible legsなるドンピシャな言い回しがありながら活用(ancleでもhipでもいいだろうに)しないでつまらない訳をあてた。
「目覚めたぞ！」
"I have awoken!"
クラスメイトの変態化を目撃した驚きが英語版では起床報告になっている。
本筋と関係ないのが救い。
「わからないんだったらいいよ…わからないまま終わればいいよ…」
"It's fine if you don't understand... You can just see the end without knowing."
危うく見逃すところだった。感じたモヤモヤに従って立ち止まってみてよかった。
日本語版では「謎が解けないまま終了」だが英語版では「終了することに気づかない」。
「ボクらは昔から、そういう風に教わってきたはずだよ。」
「直接的に言葉で言われなくたって、ボクらを取り巻く世界を見ればわかるよね。」
「テレビやネットや新聞から垂れ流される“希望溢れるメッセージ”がそう言ってるもん…」
「勝てない人間も…頑張らない人間も…頑張っても勝てない人間も…」
"For a long time, humans have been taught that if you try hard enough, you can accomplish anything."
"Even if we weren't told this directly, you'd know it just by looking at the world around us."
"The Internet, TV, and newspapers are overflowing with hopeful messages that say exactly that..."
"But people who can't win...people who don't try to win...people who try their best and still can't win..."
気づいた瞬間血の気が引いた、個人的に最低最悪の誤訳。機械翻訳にかけてもこうはならない。
元の文章にありもしない"if you try hard enough, you can accomplish anything"と"But"を入れようとした時点でおかしいと思わなかったのだろうか。
また英語版だと彼は"Internet, TV, and newspapers"に賛同していないことになるが、それなら"hopeful messages"と形容するのは不可解だと気づいてくれよ。
訳者は単純に読み違えたのか勝手に自分の主義主張を入れ込んだのか。
個人的には中間をとって、先入観に惑わされて誤読したのだろうと思っている。
確かに英語版は敵役とかちょっと厨二かひねくれものの主人公とかライバルが言いそうな、または苦い現実を地道に描くような物語によく出てきそうな言葉だ。
でも彼はそうじゃない。
彼を、ちょっと幼げで熱情的で小物っぽい狂信者を表したセリフをよくもこんな訳にしてくれたものだ。
"It's like the smug feeling you get when you explain something
同時通訳者の逸話で、どこかに招かれてスピーチした人が日本語に訳しにくいジョークを言ったときに
「この方は面白いジョークを言いました。みなさん笑ってください」と言って
その場を丸く収めたという話を思い出すが、ゲームの訳者は客に笑えと頼む仕事ではない。
確かに英語版もどことなく彼女がいいそうなセリフだが日本一ソフトウェアの罪が軽くなるわけではない。
「オメーがオレを殴んだよ。」
「だってお前…いつも俺を信じてなかったろ？」
良いシーンで誤訳。二つも誤訳。どうしてそうなるのか意味不明すぎて恐怖すら感じる誤訳。
詳細は伏せるが日本語版ではあるキャラの口調が一時変わる。それはいいけど英語版で微妙に追従してるのが困る。
英語に口調の違いなどほとんどないのに無駄に一部だけ変更してるから違和感しかない。誤字脱字だと思った人が多いだろうなあ、あれ。
ささいなことだとは思ったがここはあえて日本語版に背きその変更は削っていつもと同じ口調にしてもらった。
「そうか？ 栄養ドリンクに見えなくもないけど…」
"Really? It looks like some kind of dietary supplement to me...Protein powder, maybe...?"
ぷっwwぷろていんwww
リアルで吹いた訳。その人がプロテインなんて持ってると思ったか？
ここで出てくるのは茶色で小さめの瓶。彼にはオロナミンcやデカビタのようなものに見えたのだろう。
しかし他の人に尋ねたところ、海外にはそのような容器に入ったエナドリはないらしいからプロテインにされてても仕方がない。
ちなみにこの訳の違いによる実害はない。
田中のセリフはなぜか軒並み高品質だった。ソニアのほとんどのネタが再現されていないのと鮮やかなコントラストを成していた。
左右田の口癖は「メンドクセー」というものだが、残念なことに英語版ではこれが毎回違う単語で訳されており口癖になっていない。
彼が手間や時間がかかる作業についてそう表現したことは一度（あいまいなのを含めれば二度）しかない。
あとは全て、怖い・不安という気持ちのときにのみメンドクセーと言っている。
臆病だったり地味に泥臭くこつこつ努力したりする左右田が恐怖を面倒という言葉に変えることでのんきで軽薄なパリピを装っている描写だと思っている。
ちなみに、一度だけの純粋に手間がかかることをメンドクセーと呼ぶシーンは
みんなの手間を省こうと努力して成功したがそれでも手間が残ってしまったときの
「メンドクセーけどヨロシク（意訳）」だからむしろ上の思いを強化している。
友達と仲間はそこそこ区別して使われているが英語版では全てfriendになっている。
なんとかしようと思ったが仲間をうまく表せる言葉は英語にはないようだ。
他の人に聞いたところそこの言語には仲間にあたる言葉があるようで一度は喜んだ……が
実際のところとあるきっかけからその言葉は廃れて今ではほぼ皮肉にしか使われないと言われ不意に
その人はゴッド・オブ・ウォーに戻しておいたそうだ。
それを英語版では円をそのままドルだったり"you don't speak English"だったりして違和感しかない。
ありがたいことに他の人はこれもyenに直したり"Don't you understand in human terms?"という意味の訳文にしたりしてくれた。
よく「着る服に無頓着なオタク」として語られがちな人々というのが、実際には決して「ファッションに無頓着」なわけではなく、マジョリティとは異なる形でgender expressionを捉え、ファッションを生産・消費してきたのではないか？ という問題意識をいい加減共有してもらいたいんだよなぁ。
宇崎ちゃんの献血ポスター的なものというのは、その意味でのgender expressionとして機能しうるものの一つではないのか？ という問について真面目に考えて欲しいんだよなぁ。
ポルノ的な要素・消費のされ方が完全に0とまでは言わないが、全てはスペクトラムであって、いい加減100%ポルノ扱いすること自体がそもそもフィクトセクシュアル・フィクトジェンダーに対する差別意識そのものだとも気づいて欲しいけど。宇崎ちゃんの献血ポスターに関しては言えば9割がた「ポルノ以外」の要素が占めてるだろうと、フィクトセクシュアル当事者の感覚としては思うよ。(ナラティブなのでエビデンスはない。)
BLに限らず、性表現ってそういうところあるのに無視されがちだよなぁ。
Gender Expressionであったりだとか、個人のセクシュアリティとアイデンティティに密接な関わりがあるのに、「オナネタ」と揶揄されて一蹴されてしまう。
対人性愛者はセックスパートナーを「恋人」と呼んで、まるでセックスとは無縁かのように振る舞うことが許されるのに、性表現を「オナニー」という直接的な性行為と結びつけることがセクハラだと認識して貰えない。
「美しい性表現」とかそういう話(だけ)ではなく。「我々の性のあり方」というアイデンティティを表現しようと思った時に、「俺にとってはこういうのが抜けるんだ」と表現するのは自然だし、表出の文脈次第で「オナネタ」は「オナネタ」でなくなることもありますよね、という話。
ポルノの自由を求める人は別にゾーニングには反対していないんだよな。むしろ、公共の場に晒されることは恥ずかしいと思っている。それは、マジョリティがセックスの様子を盗撮されて晒されるのを嫌がるのと同じ。
しかし一方で、「二次元を性的に見るセクシュアリティ」の人々は、独自のgender expressionの文化を持っていることも無視できない。マジョリティがお腹のたるみを気にするように、二次元キャラクターを「性的に魅力的に描く」ことは、必ずしもポルノ的文脈ではなく、それをファッションとして消費する文脈がある。それを安易に「ゾーニング」することを看過してもいけないんだよな。
こうした論理は決してポルノとの差別化ではない。「日傘差す男なんてホモだろｗ」という言葉を批判することは、同性愛者差別とは違う。「性的」という言葉では語りきれない微妙な差異がそこには存在する事を、理解してもらわなければいけないんだよな。
