[ipodi]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I never said that she did.

That's not what I said. I stated that how internet has changed the reader-reviewer relationship is irrelevant, so bringing it up serves no purpose.

Without a readership, a reviewer is out of a job. So a reviewer is every bit as accountable to his or her readership as s/he is to his or her direct boss. If not moreso.

They are still not the reviewers' bosses. If the owner of the publication thinks that biased reviews bring in more cash then keeping the customer's base, then base on your logic, advertisers will be the boss. Whether this is a short-term opportunistic view is irrelevant to the fact that it's the owner who direct the personnel decisions and operations, not the customers.

Even from a purely pragmatic point of view, what Satsuki is doing here is risky stuff. Suppose a lot of people who were actually at these Inns end up reading the overly negative reviews, and rightly notice that they're garbage? Those same people can then protest the reviews, bringing controversy and shame on to the publication that Satsuki wrote the reviews in. Satsuki herself could easily get caught up in that, and have her career ruined.

A true professional would object to such needless risks (or at least not partake in them). These risks are ones that undermine the integrity of the profession itself.

Once again, this is not the definition for professionalism.

Yeah, frankly. Unless you think that a parent shouldn't be concerned whatsoever with the happiness or contentedness of his or her child.

A nice perk - but not a main concern. A main concern ought to be whether the kids are well-adjusted.

By all accounts, Ohana is.

I may be misreading a comment or two on this thread, but I don't see anybody here condemning Satsuki for that specifically.

You did - it's one of the things you brought up.

It is not just that Satsuki is turning a blind eye to such corruptions. It's that she's an active participant in them, and doesn't even feel the slightest sense of guilt over them.

There is no corruption. There is a special interest in play, but that's not corruption.

Precisely. And I'm saying that in my belief what Satuski is deserving of criticism. As is what the publication in general is doing, of course.

Precisely what? You are criticizing her courage. And as I said, doing so while we have not yet demonstrated the same courage is smugness.

There is more to my criticism than that alone.

One of which involves you criticizing her courage for not speaking out. And this is the one I am focusing on. Are you saying that her failure to speak out is no longer a negative count now? If so, then we have reached an agreement.

This anime has already make it abundantly clear that Satuski and her mom do not see eye-to-eye and had a falling out with one another.

It's hardly a great leap of logic to then speculate that Satuski's harsh review of her mother's Inn was motivated, in part, but Satuski's personal issues with her mothers.

A leap is speculation.

Bad analogy.

There's a difference between costing jobs through honest competition in the marketplace, and costing jobs through dishonest reviews.

A fair point. I am willing so state that the publication is dishonest.

There's your crime right there then. There's no question that these are false reviews.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not dispute whether libel happened or not.

1. Strawman argument. Nobody is expecting Satsuki to be "the most honest person alive".

2. For some professions, at least, honesty and professionalism do go hand-in-hand. I would definitely consider a professional reviewer to be one such profession.

1. So people can be "a little honest?" Like you can be "a little pregnant?" Please.

Where does "corporate" come into play? Not all professions are corporate in nature.

Professionalism is about living up to the standards set by your profession. And the standards of professional reviewers involving giving honest reviews.

I will now address the previous two quotes here together. One, that's not the definition for professionalism. That's your ideal of professionalism. So far, every time I brought this up, your argument has always been "I disagree."

So I wish not to expound on this any further. We will just be going in circles if one party adopts his own definition.

Most child developmental psychologists would disagree.

Oh? Please cite any actual studies that make such pronouncement.

Satsuki may care about her daughter at a superficial level, but not to any significant degree, in my opinion.

That's fine.
================

Originally Posted by Kagayaki

First of all, I'll point out that as a character, Satsuki is perfect for this series and is doing a good job of injecting interesting drama.

I think it's a mistake to categorize her behavior as mature, though. I can see why a high-handed criticism of her lack of moral courage might seem somewhat hollow, given that many of us have never been in Satsuki's shoes.

The issue, for me, is that Satsuki wasn't writing fabricated reviews about a random stranger. She was writing them about her mother and her daughter.

I'd like to think that even if I wouldn't have the moral courage to speak out in all circumstances, there are at least a few people in my life who I would be willing to stand up for, even if it might be a poor career decision. Essentially, what this episode showed was that there is nobody in Satsuki's life who she feels the need to stand up for.

That's not a sign of maturity, nor is it a sign of immaturity. It's just sad.

Again, let me make this clear:

I said how this series depicts the situation Satsuki is facing is mature. I did not say she is mature. I did not say she did the right or wrong thing. I did not criticize or praise anyone other than Ohana.
=====================================

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

That'd be the most dysfunctional generation you could possibly produce

Ummmm... no. There is a near consensus that snowflakery and self-entitlement are running wild among schoolkids.