[content warning: self harm] ((discussion of self harm specifics in the top level plurk right alongside the warning and not under the cut))
is not of the same caliber as
[diet plurk] (("today I ate xxx calories for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for a total of xxxx, but I cheated a little and also had this unhealthy food"))
it doesn't matter whether someone has an ed or not. talking about those two things like they are on the same level socially is oblivious and obtuse as all hell
But the initial comment says that the person in question is tagging it as a content warning how is "[cw: calorie counting] here's all my calorie shit in the top level" different? It's acknowledging that people with EDs could be pushed back into self-harming behavior by seeing this but doing it anyway.
because talking about food and eating is not socially coded the same way that talking about self harm, body mutilation, rape, murder, torture, or other things that would generally be considered not ok for casual discussion around (for example) a water cooler at work
talking about food and eating is a basic component of human social interaction, and that doesn't change just because some people are struggling with an ed
if you can't understand that distinction then I don't know what to tell you besides that you probably need to interact with more human beings off of the internet
But the comment is not about someone talking about food or eating. It's about someone specifically warning for something and putting it in the top level anyway. Just because it's a more socially acceptable thing doesn't mean it's not still a poor way to use a cw tag.
I mean, I've seen people go crazy over someone doing something like "[GoT spoilers] lol this dude died". Lots of people in the real world don't give a fuck about dropping spoilers in casual conversation, but here on the internet it's considered common courtesy. The complaint is don't tag for something you're going to stick in the top level anyway. And the perfectly rational response is to unfollow someone who keeps doing it.
and a lot of people also use tags at the start of a plurk just to indicate what will be in it so that people can easily skim, scroll, mute, move on, or read as they want
they don't necessarily just use tags as warnings to hide "sensitive" information whether it be spoilers or triggering stuff or anything else
the fact that someone has marked what a plurk will contain by no means implies that they are (or should be) doing it to protect or shield readers from the content/topic. not every tag is a content warning, and the presumption that someone talking about their diet SHOULD be a content warning is frankly fucked up
if you are so thin skinned that you need to be shielded from something as completely innocuous as someone saying "I ate these things today" then you shouldn't be on the internet at all
(and to be clear, if someone wants to unfollow because of that, then hey cool, that's their choice and more power to them. but if they start talking about it like "omg this person didn't trigger warn for talking about eating and that's like just as bad as not trigger warning for talking about self harm!!" then I'm going to call them on it)
Well presumably one marked with a "cw" is a content warning, which is what I assumed from the top comment.
I get what you're saying that not every tag is a cw though, or even that a cw tag means things need to be hidden under the top plurk, but most people do use them that way. We can just agree to disagree on whether calorie counting is something that needs to be warned for and move on.
However, remember that this was the comment that started all this:
fuck man, I know exactly somebody on my timeline who does this same bullshit, only for eating and calorie counting.
unfollowed her ass.
No one was talking about being triggered or anything being as bad as self-harm until other people came into the thread to respond to this comment. Someone said that someone kept content warning for this and then doing it, so they unfollowed.
not to start shit or anything, and i don't have this myself to verify, but i was under the impression that people used things like 'cw' or 'content warning' or things like that for their plurk savior, to mute/hide plurks that held things they didn't want to see. so using 'cw' or some variation of it that someone on their timeline is familiar with in their top level should hide that plurk entirely, which is what plurk savior is for.
i remember hearing when it came out that loads of people just blanket blocked anything with game names/memes/cw/tw in general to avoid seeing them. so it could very well be that these types of people are doing it, or expecting others to, much like people who embed icons with dw tools don't see them unformatted like people without it do.
That's fair if that's what they're expecting (I don't use plurk savior and though it was even a thing, so I wasn't thinking of it). It's still fair for someone who doesn't use that tool to unfollow in they're seeing a lot of plurks about anything they don't like, though.
ok i do see the point you're making in a lot of contexts. i agree, i'm not arguing that some chatter about uwu my diet is the same level of universal bad as someone on your tl cutting.
but i honestly didn't get any sense that unfollow-anon was trying to equate them in terms of being universally bad things. just as stuff that frequently gets tagged as their own category of thing so people can avoid it, with the tag used in an ineffective way. and it's legit to be annoyed about that, and extra legit if you have some serious fucked up body issues or ED or whatever and it's actually a problem for you. to which the correct response is unfollowing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ryanongosling) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
wankgate2017-08-27 11:58 am
(frozen comment) Re: da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:10 pm (UTC)(link)and maybe
they unfollowed the person who was aggravating those?
(frozen comment) Re: da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:16 pm (UTC)(link)[content warning: self harm] ((discussion of self harm specifics in the top level plurk right alongside the warning and not under the cut))
is not of the same caliber as
[diet plurk] (("today I ate xxx calories for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for a total of xxxx, but I cheated a little and also had this unhealthy food"))
it doesn't matter whether someone has an ed or not. talking about those two things like they are on the same level socially is oblivious and obtuse as all hell
(frozen comment) da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:19 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:25 pm (UTC)(link)talking about food and eating is a basic component of human social interaction, and that doesn't change just because some people are struggling with an ed
if you can't understand that distinction then I don't know what to tell you besides that you probably need to interact with more human beings off of the internet
(frozen comment) Re: da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:30 pm (UTC)(link)I mean, I've seen people go crazy over someone doing something like "[GoT spoilers] lol this dude died". Lots of people in the real world don't give a fuck about dropping spoilers in casual conversation, but here on the internet it's considered common courtesy. The complaint is don't tag for something you're going to stick in the top level anyway. And the perfectly rational response is to unfollow someone who keeps doing it.
(frozen comment) Re: da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:45 pm (UTC)(link)they don't necessarily just use tags as warnings to hide "sensitive" information whether it be spoilers or triggering stuff or anything else
the fact that someone has marked what a plurk will contain by no means implies that they are (or should be) doing it to protect or shield readers from the content/topic. not every tag is a content warning, and the presumption that someone talking about their diet SHOULD be a content warning is frankly fucked up
if you are so thin skinned that you need to be shielded from something as completely innocuous as someone saying "I ate these things today" then you shouldn't be on the internet at all
(and to be clear, if someone wants to unfollow because of that, then hey cool, that's their choice and more power to them. but if they start talking about it like "omg this person didn't trigger warn for talking about eating and that's like just as bad as not trigger warning for talking about self harm!!" then I'm going to call them on it)
(frozen comment) Re: da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:54 pm (UTC)(link)I get what you're saying that not every tag is a cw though, or even that a cw tag means things need to be hidden under the top plurk, but most people do use them that way. We can just agree to disagree on whether calorie counting is something that needs to be warned for and move on.
However, remember that this was the comment that started all this:
fuck man, I know exactly somebody on my timeline who does this same bullshit, only for eating and calorie counting.
unfollowed her ass.
No one was talking about being triggered or anything being as bad as self-harm until other people came into the thread to respond to this comment. Someone said that someone kept content warning for this and then doing it, so they unfollowed.
(frozen comment) dda
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 03:00 pm (UTC)(link)i remember hearing when it came out that loads of people just blanket blocked anything with game names/memes/cw/tw in general to avoid seeing them. so it could very well be that these types of people are doing it, or expecting others to, much like people who embed icons with dw tools don't see them unformatted like people without it do.
(frozen comment) ayrt
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 03:02 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) sa
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 03:03 pm (UTC)(link)That's some interesting autocorrect.
(frozen comment) Re: da
(Anonymous) 2017-09-07 02:22 pm (UTC)(link)but i honestly didn't get any sense that unfollow-anon was trying to equate them in terms of being universally bad things. just as stuff that frequently gets tagged as their own category of thing so people can avoid it, with the tag used in an ineffective way. and it's legit to be annoyed about that, and extra legit if you have some serious fucked up body issues or ED or whatever and it's actually a problem for you. to which the correct response is unfollowing.