Porygon Was Innocent: An epileptic perspective on the infamous Pokémon episode

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 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?

Are people who want to make PB&J “ableist”?

"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.