4 ms·

I wonder what people think about that part of the article where the author paints people who want to see the unedited version of the show in a negative light. T

I wonder what people think about that part of the article where the author paints people who want to see the unedited version of the show in a negative light. The author presents “but i am not epileptic” crowd as ableist and insensitive. I strongly disagree and this kind of take makes me sympathize with the author less than I would otherwise, subconsciously. I can simultaneously support the idea that we should make adjusted content for people with epilepsy, or in a more general sense - it is a sign of elevated society to strive to accommodate people with disabilities or differences, but at the same time resent the notion that accomplishing the above has to mean that asking for an unaltered experience is “wrong”. I feel that putting those two demands on the opposite sides of the scale is “wokeism”.

the_af 2y ago
I think the author does a fine job of pointing out you don't know whether this scene can harm you (you can be hit by it while not having had a seizure before in your life), so you cannot make an a priori judgment on whether you can safely watch the scene unedited. So playing the edited scene seems like the safest choice for everyone...
- VincentEvans 2y ago
  Putting up a warning (and maybe this warning should be more prominent, or some other mechanism ought to be invented if warnings are not effective) - is what we currently do to accommodate people with food allergies. Does it make sense to take peanut butter off the store shelves, and completely eradicate all nuts, dairy, and wheat out of all food products? Are people who want to make PB&J “ableist”?
  - speerer 2y ago
    In the UK, many schools do just this to defend allergic people against the threat that homemade lunches would otherwise pose.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      What do you mean? Do they ban homemade lunches in schools?
      - speerer 2y ago
        No, homemade lunches are fine: but parents making them are instructed to avoid the worst allergens like nuts and peanuts.
  - the_af 2y ago
    "Some other mechanism if warnings are not effective" -- like what, and how would it differ from the edits? A method known to work trumps an hypothetical method in my opinion. The "ableist" comment by the author seems a direct response to "I don't care about this because I'm not an epileptic", which is the definition of ableism: not caring about the disabilities of others. He/she seems upset that some animé purists only cared about watching the original sequence and disregarding potential harm to others. Unlike with PB&J, where if you are allergic to peanuts you're not harmed by someone else enjoying them, exposure to epilepsy-inducing animé can maybe harm you if you glance at what someone else is watching. Say you enter a friend's house, and they are watching this episode, and they've already skipped past the warning (because, after all, it doesn't affect them) and you watch what they are watching and it turns out you are affected. Of course, you cannot cover all risks all the time, but editing these animés just in case seems like a reasonable and safe choice to me. And let's not be dramatic, everyone can still watch the animé, it's just that some visual effects have been edited to make them less potentially harmful. It's not like censorship.
    - asynchronous 2y ago
      Uh no, that’s revisionism to define ableism that way, we’re not going to let you rewrite the language. Ableism is specifically “the discrimination and prejudice _against_ people with disabilities”. Not “not caring about the disabilities of others”.
      - the_af 2y ago
        "We" are not going to "let you"? You're providing the same definition in different words, anyway.
    - VincentEvans 2y ago
      I feel like you are arguing with some “bad telephone” version of what I wrote. I am supportive if efforts being made to accommodate people’s disabilities. My charge here - is that also offering unedited versions of original experience is not discriminatory, not insensitive, and not “ableist” as the article claims it to be. Furthermore - the author presented facts in bad faith. I went to the petition linked in the article, and unlike what the article claims - it makes no demand to take down epileptic-friendly version, just asking to offer the unedited one. And i quote: “ As fans, we implore Crunchyroll to try to acquire an uncut version of the simulcast as we are paying good money each month for the services they provide. Not only does it impact the fans but Toho and Crunchyroll are gravely underestimating how the lack of effort to provide clean versions is affecting the engagement and overall reception of the season, as in many instances the ghosting completely ruins or takes you out of the experience.”
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    The comparison to allergies s interesting: if your kid is allergic to peanuts, every food item in the house will be screened for peanuts, and if you still keep some it will be in a protected place. What the equivalent would be for flashing lights ? Would you be sitting with the kid at the start of every single episode/content he watches to read the warning labels ? If we look at the Pokemon incident, it was one episode amount hundreds, so just cutting off whole series wouldn't work. And there's also the additional burden of providing alternatives. For a school restaurant, they can replace a peanut butter sandwich with a donut it won't be a big deal. You can't replace a Pokemon episode with a Digimon one and go on with the story the next week, your kid will still want to watch the episode, and the airing company will probably drag their feet at providing costly alternatives. Long story short, I see having the safe version as default to be the more viable choice, with the unsafe version as the alternative fans have to seek to find, probably at cost.
homefree 2y ago
It's also odd that there seems to be a large overlap of autistic, disabled, queer or trans, anime fans with far left politics (add in the requisite bluesky/mastodon account). It doesn't necessarily mean anything - but that kind of union of disparate things always sets of some skepticism alarms for me around social contagion or general mental illness that makes me distrust the argument as presented, like there's some detail being left out in pursuit of some partisan goal. I also just have an allergic reaction to people calling others *ist at this point too, espeically when trying to leverage some policy against them.
asynchronous 2y ago
I also think they’re somewhat manipulating statistics to their benefit- they start by saying “1 in 100 people have epilepsy” but it’s an untrue statement that 1% of people have the type of epilepsy that would react to this specific example of flashing lights between 5-25 a second.

the_af 2y ago

I think the author does a fine job of pointing out you don't know whether this scene can harm you (you can be hit by it while not having had a seizure before in your life), so you cannot make an a priori judgment on whether you can safely watch the scene unedited. So playing the edited scene seems like the safest choice for everyone...

VincentEvans 2y ago
Putting up a warning (and maybe this warning should be more prominent, or some other mechanism ought to be invented if warnings are not effective) - is what we currently do to accommodate people with food allergies. Does it make sense to take peanut butter off the store shelves, and completely eradicate all nuts, dairy, and wheat out of all food products? Are people who want to make PB&J “ableist”?
- speerer 2y ago
  In the UK, many schools do just this to defend allergic people against the threat that homemade lunches would otherwise pose.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    What do you mean? Do they ban homemade lunches in schools?
    - speerer 2y ago
      No, homemade lunches are fine: but parents making them are instructed to avoid the worst allergens like nuts and peanuts.
- the_af 2y ago
  "Some other mechanism if warnings are not effective" -- like what, and how would it differ from the edits? A method known to work trumps an hypothetical method in my opinion. The "ableist" comment by the author seems a direct response to "I don't care about this because I'm not an epileptic", which is the definition of ableism: not caring about the disabilities of others. He/she seems upset that some animé purists only cared about watching the original sequence and disregarding potential harm to others. Unlike with PB&J, where if you are allergic to peanuts you're not harmed by someone else enjoying them, exposure to epilepsy-inducing animé can maybe harm you if you glance at what someone else is watching. Say you enter a friend's house, and they are watching this episode, and they've already skipped past the warning (because, after all, it doesn't affect them) and you watch what they are watching and it turns out you are affected. Of course, you cannot cover all risks all the time, but editing these animés just in case seems like a reasonable and safe choice to me. And let's not be dramatic, everyone can still watch the animé, it's just that some visual effects have been edited to make them less potentially harmful. It's not like censorship.
  - asynchronous 2y ago
    Uh no, that’s revisionism to define ableism that way, we’re not going to let you rewrite the language. Ableism is specifically “the discrimination and prejudice _against_ people with disabilities”. Not “not caring about the disabilities of others”.
    - the_af 2y ago
      "We" are not going to "let you"? You're providing the same definition in different words, anyway.
  - VincentEvans 2y ago
    I feel like you are arguing with some “bad telephone” version of what I wrote. I am supportive if efforts being made to accommodate people’s disabilities. My charge here - is that also offering unedited versions of original experience is not discriminatory, not insensitive, and not “ableist” as the article claims it to be. Furthermore - the author presented facts in bad faith. I went to the petition linked in the article, and unlike what the article claims - it makes no demand to take down epileptic-friendly version, just asking to offer the unedited one. And i quote: “ As fans, we implore Crunchyroll to try to acquire an uncut version of the simulcast as we are paying good money each month for the services they provide. Not only does it impact the fans but Toho and Crunchyroll are gravely underestimating how the lack of effort to provide clean versions is affecting the engagement and overall reception of the season, as in many instances the ghosting completely ruins or takes you out of the experience.”
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  The comparison to allergies s interesting: if your kid is allergic to peanuts, every food item in the house will be screened for peanuts, and if you still keep some it will be in a protected place. What the equivalent would be for flashing lights ? Would you be sitting with the kid at the start of every single episode/content he watches to read the warning labels ? If we look at the Pokemon incident, it was one episode amount hundreds, so just cutting off whole series wouldn't work. And there's also the additional burden of providing alternatives. For a school restaurant, they can replace a peanut butter sandwich with a donut it won't be a big deal. You can't replace a Pokemon episode with a Digimon one and go on with the story the next week, your kid will still want to watch the episode, and the airing company will probably drag their feet at providing costly alternatives. Long story short, I see having the safe version as default to be the more viable choice, with the unsafe version as the alternative fans have to seek to find, probably at cost.

homefree 2y ago

It's also odd that there seems to be a large overlap of autistic, disabled, queer or trans, anime fans with far left politics (add in the requisite bluesky/mastodon account). It doesn't necessarily mean anything - but that kind of union of disparate things always sets of some skepticism alarms for me around social contagion or general mental illness that makes me distrust the argument as presented, like there's some detail being left out in pursuit of some partisan goal. I also just have an allergic reaction to people calling others *ist at this point too, espeically when trying to leverage some policy against them.

asynchronous 2y ago

I also think they’re somewhat manipulating statistics to their benefit- they start by saying “1 in 100 people have epilepsy” but it’s an untrue statement that 1% of people have the type of epilepsy that would react to this specific example of flashing lights between 5-25 a second.