Help me out here guys. I know things get people upset, including politics... but at what point do I need to put anything that can get anyone upset behind a content warning? NSFW stuff, things that can cause epilepsy, sure... but conversation about politics? Feels extreme to me. Let's talk about this. Why should people use a CW for it? Why shouldn't they?
@shivian I really enjoy the no-assholes-policies, and I would enjoy it further if toots about e.g. the minority president would be CWed, because it's an asshole, and I don't want to see its face or read its name.
@lieselotte @mothman but anyone can be upset with anything... am I supposed to CW anything anyone ever asks me to, or I know *might* offend someone, otherwise I'm being a jerk? At what point is it the reader's responsibility to move past upsetting - but generally discussed - content that they don't like (be it politics, climate change, forest fires, or other upsetting topics)?
@shivian There is a lot of pressure already on the person to 'move past' it. I'll cw anything anyone who follows me asks me to, I have that policy on all my social media. But not everyone is going to do that, and I've had conflicts before, even recently, where friends haven't wanted to cw things. Some people even cw harmless stuff that happens to be long. It's just personal preference I suppose.
@mothman it's not personal preference if a lot of SJWs on Mastodon instances are telling everyone else that they HAVE to tag stuff with the CW flag if it's "political" :disappointed_relieved:
@shivian I dont know, I agree with the other person saying it's a complicated issue. It's really easy to get caught up in tagging everything, I have ocd and the thought of hurting someone unintentionally is really upsetting to me! It's difficult because on masto it's a public timeline, instead of a personally curated one like on most sites. I find that most people with very severe 'oddball' triggers (I use that word gently, you know what I mean) use blacklist widgets already.