38
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
38 points (95.2% liked)
Asklemmy
55818 readers
865 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately, making the animal distinction creates a lot of problems.
What if the show is focused on animal characters, like Looney Toons? Or, if someone shoots a bird for food?
The V label would apply to both situations.
Not really creating problems. It would mean people who forget to check https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ can have a heads up. Having more info is not a bad thing. People can then figure out if it's looney tunes or if it's pet abuse. I didn't see how you can on one hand argue for more clear info in ratings and then argue against it.
Because this could balloon quickly into including all letters of the alphabet. Does it pass the Bechtel Test?Does it include blood, but not violence? I'm not arguing for more information, but enough information to know what's included.
Physical force against people, or animals, with the intent of harm, is the legal definition of violence.
If someone purposefully kills a dog, they've committed violence.
Can you make a case that animal and human violence should be separate categories?
Yes I can make the case. My case: doesthedogdie exists. I know a lot of people who get more upset about seeing an animal hurt than human on human violence.
Who gets to arbitrarily decide which is important? So what if it balloons? Again, the more info the better imo.
Doesthedogdie literally has about 100 different categories (more than even the letters of the alphabet). Analysis Paralysis is a thing. That's why we don't want to balloon it. It's also why movies don't target specific ages on their ratings already, but a range of ages. Too many options means less familiarity with the system and information overload.
I know a lot of people who are more upset by knives than guns. You can't describe every little detail in a film, because someone could get upset about it. The ratings are a guide for parents on what's appropriate for their kids.