earlier replies
Replying to @CochuU_ @_Cochu
I mean the source doesn't really change my opinion.
2
2
1
1
I'm... not denying that. All that tells me is that I think Mastodon's format is harmful lol
1
1
I don't see how it's harmful
1
1
People already barely take CWs seriously, the fact that it auto adds CWs when they're not required isn't gonna help that. It stands for content warning, nobody needs a warning for every single thing.
1
1
Assholes who don't take content or trigger warnings seriously shouldn't get to decide when using a content warning is ok or not. None of us need a content warning for the letter b, so just, move on?
1
1
I mean hey I'm already "moved on", just giving my thoughts. I think we just fundamentally disagree here, personally, I just do not think it's an accurate usage of a "warning", it's more of a subheading.
3
2
No the move on was more like, if you see a content warning for something that you don't need a warning for, just ignore the content warning
1
2
Gotcha, the difference is that nobody on the planet needs a content warning for the letter b, making it entirely uneccesary. We've established that the source auto posts CWs, but I don't think everything on the planet requires a CW.
1
3
Essentially a content warning = topic. I feel like you don't feel like the words content warning are an appropriate way of conveying the topic, I think it's ok
2
3
Replying to @CochuU_ @_Cochu @Mayro2020
"Content warning" just feels like too strong of a word. A better usage when the website transfers over would be just, "topic", in my opinion but hey that's fine if we disagree.

May 18, 2021 路 4:26 PM UTC

1
2
Replying to @CiblesGD @Mayro2020
I'm ok with that. I can understand both your viewpoints, I think the words content warning are okay and I don't think it's ableist to use them for less common things
1
2
I don't think it's ableist either, I'm just worried that posts like these are going to cause people to not take other CW's seriously.
1