How so? I think it's indicative that YouTube and TikTok are the biggest streamers out there and are changing how we consume media not Netflix, max, etc. especially for the younger generation tho I'm almost 50.
I’m glad they bring up the techniques of ghosting and others to pass the Harding test, and the outcry from western audiences about it. Because personally, I find the diminishing of the animation quality really distracting during those hype scenes.
I wish we could find some solution where we distribute the epileptic-safe versions alongside the unsafe ones and users could choose.
>I wish we could find some solution where we distribute the epileptic-safe versions alongside the unsafe ones and users could choose.
They seem to be able to distribute uncensored & censored versions for some of the more risque or violent shows, as well as various levels of censorship for different regions. So, the solution is sort of already there, there's just not enough motivation I guess.
> I wish we could find some solution where we distribute the epileptic-safe versions alongside the unsafe ones and users could choose.
How would the users choose though?
"I want to risk an epileptic fit" vs "I don't want to risk one"? And if you do have a fit due to an underlying condition you didn't know about, and you break your back or suffer some injury (as the author narrates having experienced, though not due to Pokemon), would the broadcaster be legally at risk?
It doesn't seem crazy to me to play it safe here...
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”.
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...
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?
"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.
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.”
How would they offer the unedited version in a safe manner that doesn't accidentally expose epileptic and undiagnosed people?
The author never claimed anybody wanted to take down the edited version. He/she claimed fans clamoring for the unedited version didn't care or understand about the consequences.
Crunchyroll app, which I am a subscriber of by the way, has “mature content” setting - like that, add a setting. Or label the version like they do for different releases. They have lots of options.
Again, this discussion thread has nothing to do with Crunchyroll and everything to do with charging people who want and expect to be able to see an unaltered version - as discriminating against disabled viewers.
And finally, quote directly from the article:
“Over 2500 fans signed a change.org petition asking Crunchyroll to take down this edited, safe, version of the series and instead upload an unedited version that was true to the original vision—even if it had the potential to cause seizures.”
If we are going to discuss the article - we should both read it.
Fair enough, TFA does claim some fans want to take down the edited version.
Helping the author's case is the ambiguous wording of the title of the change.org petition, to wit:
> "Remove ghosting and dimming from Jujutsu Kaisen Season 2 on Crunchyroll"
While "remove" could be read either way (i.e. either "make another edit also available" vs "replace the version that exists now"), I think the author's interpretation, coming from an experience of being actually disabled, is a reasonable take. I don't see bad faith like you do.
PS: going by the comments on change.org, only one seems to be openly asking for both versions to be made available, while most of the others seem to match the accusation of the author: "but I'm not epileptic!" (in so many words). Spot on.
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 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.
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.
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.
It does allow JSON import/export format, and it used to even allow more granular customization of css before it got a rewrite. Here’s the source code:
https://github.com/AmruthPillai/Reactive-Resume
The issue is then the theoretical contract of the two of you together takes no real repercussion for breaking the law, whereas separately if you committed crimes independently then you could be put in jail. We don’t have capital punishment for corporations, and we should.
This largely isn't true. The most effective way to shield yourself from crime is to just be a corporation. It's trivial to kill hundreds, even thousands, if the accountability is spread out against enough people.
Famously Bayer Pharmaceuticals knowingly sold HIV infected products in Africa. How many people got HIV? And how many then passed it on, and then how many of those passed it on? I don't know. I'm guessing the amount of people who died of AIDS is pretty much impossible to quantify. Nobody went to jail. Of course, this is an obvious example. It's not so obvious when you consider the role companies like McDonald's have played in people's deaths.
We even have separate terms for corporations, like fraud. Fraud is really just stealing. If I commit some type of fraud and get 10 million dollars, sure I might be fined. Might. If I steal 10 million dollars as an individual, then I go to prison.
The only time this doesn't happen is if, and only if, there's an individual within a corporation acting alone or calling the shots. This is trivial to avoid. The game of corporate America is really just accountability management. I mean, who do you jail if you don't even know who did it?
Ultimately though, the problem with corporations have direct influences over elections is that they inherently have different incentives than individuals. What's best for our citizens and what's best for Corp X rarely align. In fact, for many industries they're directly contrary! Tobacco thrives off of making people sick and addicted, and sure, that one is obvious. What about automobile manufacturers? Isn't it in their interest to have the most shit public infrastructure possible? And... doesn't that effect poorer Americans the most?
Or what about oil? Isn't it in their interest to make the air and water as poisonous as possible, because they can cut costs that way? And what about fast food? Isn't it in their interest to makes the ingredients and health of their food as difficult to understand as possible? And on and on and on.
Individuals would never advocate any of that, not in a million years. So, the speech isn't the same. IMO, you just can't compare them like that, because the incentives are way different. The majority of companies directly benefit from screwing you over in a plethora of ways. Why should those opinions matter? What good does that do for you or me?
I think you are still taking issue with the severity of penalties, not legal immunity.
Should someone go to jail for HIV deaths in Africa, or heart attacks from McDonalds? I dont think the comparison to individuals is as clear as you make it out to be. We dont charge surgeons
This is beside really besides the point tho when it comes to elections. Corporations are made up of people. If you restrict them, you are also restricting the individuals. Maybe we should- A lot of countries do! I just dont get why people get into all this complex theory about corporate personhood instead of just making that claim. If you dont like corporate donations, are you really OK with Gates or whoever making a $100M donation? do you really think corporate donations are somehow worse?
We definitely do if they act in malice. "Do no harm" and all. I guess then it comes down to how stupid you think corporate leadership is.
IMO, most of the time they're not stupid. I don't think Tabacco executives genuinely though getting people hooked on nicotine was fine. Not to mention they did everything they could to make the occurrence of nicotine more potent...
> are you really OK with Gates or whoever making a $100M donation? do you really think corporate donations are somehow worse?
1. I'm not 100% okay with the ultra-wealthy influencing elections, because their interests are also at odds with the average American person (who is who your representatives should serve!), but:
2. I do think it's slightly better than corporations influencing elections. Bill Gates is still a person and probably doesn't advocate things that directly harm humanity. The same is not true for corporations - many of them literally exist solely to harm humanity (and make money in the process).
