There is at least one user on here who has specifically and repeatedly (many times, in fact) asked that people not throw that word around so casually; please change the CW to read "SA" instead.
Usually people cw sexual assault with SA or sexual assault to avoid using the word. And people here ask for it.
Frankly I find the assertion that someone’s weak bc they may not be in a place to deal with something at a particular moment pretty reactionary.
You have undoubtedly had moments in your life where you were at your limit and everyone has a different one and is at different places at any given time.
We can’t know where a person is on the internet. If you’re friend is going through a tough time I doubt you’d bust in with some I’ll timed jokes or other stories that might remind them of the pain or trauma they’re going through. We can’t have that certainty of place with strangers on the internet but we can try to catalog our posts in a way that gives them the ability to decide for themselves what they want to deal with at the moment.
Shouldn't you CW that anecdote then? We can't know that someone on the internet didn't just lost a parent or close family member. Acknowledging the existence of dead family jokes might remind them of the pain or trauma they're going through.
Content warning discourse played out on tumblr when I was a kid. Until you edited to put SA (which I appreciate) this was genuinely indistinguishable from right-wing trolling to me.
Sorry I missed that discourse since I was adulting before tumblr was a domain name. Did anyone address at what point a content warning was more triggering than the content?
I don’t think labels are ever gonna be as trigging as actually seeing someone actually conduct the behavior. Like I said earlier the concept of transphobia or racism or whatever in the name isn’t gonna have the same punch and seeing someone say or do something shitty.
I can read the worth transphobia fine, seeing a terf or some right wing ding dong actually say something shitty about trans people is always gonna worse than the word “transphobia.” It just tells me avoid it if I feel like it
But in this case we aren't even seeing ableism. This ableist is doing the "I don't like X, but he's one of good ones" bit. The only thing offensive here is that the ableist is admitting their ableism. Is surface level introspection and compartmentalization that offensive?
There's no indication of the topic when looking at the thumbnail or the previous image title, and the content of the image is 'I don't like/am not romantically interested in this person with disabilities, but can I get money from them by pantomiming dating them?'
Yeah, I think that's fucked up enough to get a warning.
Sometimes just the reminder of the condition is enough, I mean depending on what I’m going through definitely different things might strike a nerve where they wouldn’t otherwise. Again ultimately if it helps a person it’s pretty simple and easy to course correct. I’m not going to tell a person who finds ableism distressing when they’re allowed to feel valid about it or what types of ableism they’re allowed to think are validly distressing or demand a dissertation from them bc I lack their perspective to understand
But let's look at the context here. Of all the people this trash human being is dating, the disabled vet is the most put together of the bunch. This isn't triggering for the disabled, this is uplifting!
![[CW: Ableism] Hmm,](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/727012094674731008/1022072562546638848/jpi5sbjz2gy71.png){kind=link}
so, like, if it said I don’t like black people instead of the nword, you don’t think it would merit a content warning?
Removed by mod
There is at least one user on here who has specifically and repeatedly (many times, in fact) asked that people not throw that word around so casually; please change the CW to read "SA" instead.
Sorry about that and thank you for the guidance. Corrected.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and reply from the perspective that this is a good faith argument you're trying to have:
You're being an asshole about this. You're not even the OP. You're just being tactless and rude. Step back and read other people's perspectives here.
why are you being this hard headed?
Usually people cw sexual assault with SA or sexual assault to avoid using the word. And people here ask for it.
Frankly I find the assertion that someone’s weak bc they may not be in a place to deal with something at a particular moment pretty reactionary.
You have undoubtedly had moments in your life where you were at your limit and everyone has a different one and is at different places at any given time.
We can’t know where a person is on the internet. If you’re friend is going through a tough time I doubt you’d bust in with some I’ll timed jokes or other stories that might remind them of the pain or trauma they’re going through. We can’t have that certainty of place with strangers on the internet but we can try to catalog our posts in a way that gives them the ability to decide for themselves what they want to deal with at the moment.
Shouldn't you CW that anecdote then? We can't know that someone on the internet didn't just lost a parent or close family member. Acknowledging the existence of dead family jokes might remind them of the pain or trauma they're going through.
Content warning discourse played out on tumblr when I was a kid. Until you edited to put SA (which I appreciate) this was genuinely indistinguishable from right-wing trolling to me.
Sorry I missed that discourse since I was adulting before tumblr was a domain name. Did anyone address at what point a content warning was more triggering than the content?
I don’t think labels are ever gonna be as trigging as actually seeing someone actually conduct the behavior. Like I said earlier the concept of transphobia or racism or whatever in the name isn’t gonna have the same punch and seeing someone say or do something shitty.
I can read the worth transphobia fine, seeing a terf or some right wing ding dong actually say something shitty about trans people is always gonna worse than the word “transphobia.” It just tells me avoid it if I feel like it
But in this case we aren't even seeing ableism. This ableist is doing the "I don't like X, but he's one of good ones" bit. The only thing offensive here is that the ableist is admitting their ableism. Is surface level introspection and compartmentalization that offensive?
deleted by creator
The recently closed comm? :data-laughing:
deleted by creator
Just saw this I’ll break off as well
There's no indication of the topic when looking at the thumbnail or the previous image title, and the content of the image is 'I don't like/am not romantically interested in this person with disabilities, but can I get money from them by pantomiming dating them?' Yeah, I think that's fucked up enough to get a warning.
Sometimes just the reminder of the condition is enough, I mean depending on what I’m going through definitely different things might strike a nerve where they wouldn’t otherwise. Again ultimately if it helps a person it’s pretty simple and easy to course correct. I’m not going to tell a person who finds ableism distressing when they’re allowed to feel valid about it or what types of ableism they’re allowed to think are validly distressing or demand a dissertation from them bc I lack their perspective to understand
Pretty much. This is like putting a racism CW on the statement "X is a racist". The warning is more triggering than the content.
I think it's more like putting a CW on someone's description of how much they hate black people
But let's look at the context here. Of all the people this trash human being is dating, the disabled vet is the most put together of the bunch. This isn't triggering for the disabled, this is uplifting!
I don't think this bit is funny enough to stick to