←back to thread

162 points Aissen | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.247s | source
Show context
asynchronous ◴[] No.42129594[source]
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.

replies(3): >>42129630 #>>42130214 #>>42130306 #
VincentEvans ◴[] No.42130214[source]
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”.

replies(3): >>42130268 #>>42130493 #>>42131044 #
the_af ◴[] No.42130268[source]
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...

replies(1): >>42130420 #
VincentEvans ◴[] No.42130420[source]
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”?

replies(3): >>42131034 #>>42131236 #>>42131310 #
1. makeitdouble ◴[] No.42131310[source]
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.