[the_af]

"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.

[VincentEvans]

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.”

[the_af]

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.

[VincentEvans]

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.

[the_af]

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.

[asynchronous]

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]

"We" are not going to "let you"?

You're providing the same definition in different words, anyway.