4 ms·

I wasn’t looking at it from work, I don’t have an office job right now (see profile). Perhaps you just weren’t aware that neither of those things are prerequis

by SilasX 4y ago

I wasn’t looking at it from work, I don’t have an office job right now (see profile). Perhaps you just weren’t aware that neither of those things are prerequisites to warning others about the high probability of seeing such images? You’re allowed to care about SFW/L beyond work contexts, and it’s helpful to alert others who might care. It feels like an attempt at invalidation when you expect someone to not even be able to warn others about content simply because some people might not care about whether it’s in that category. Hence why it comes across to me as outrage: you have to feel pretty strongly to oppose a mere warning. It’s kind of funny how common trigger warnings are, but when I mention the possibility of an image set being surprisingly unfiltered and having frequent NSFW/L content, I have to rehash the entire concept. Also, I would say your work is unusually lax if you see nothing wrong with pulling up bikini images there. (Similarly unusual deficit of empathy, while we’re at it.)

dspillett 4y ago
I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. My comment about you overreacting wasn't about the definition of what is/n't safe for work/life, but that you referred to one polite disagreement as “people being outraged”. > Also, I would say your work is unusually lax if you see nothing wrong with pulling up bikini images there. Deliberately pulling up such images, perhaps for the purposes of ogling them, would be inappropriate. Happening upon them while taking a break and looking as at random site would not, any more than there would be an issue with such an image coming up as you browse a newspaper that happens to have an image of that sort illustrating an article about the current heatwave, or some holiday offer, or a beech fashion event. Sensible rules have room for context. > (Similarly unusual deficit of empathy, while we’re at it.) I find your comment on empathy ironic, given the rest of this bit of thread!
- SilasX 4y ago
  >I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. If you're saying that people are wrong to not want a massive bloody finger or a drunken flashing photo on their screen, then yes, you are objecting to the warning, and you are showing an empathy deficit. Sorry, where was the irony you claimed to see? Because as far as I can tell, I have empathy for people who don't want those images on their screen, while you don't. Generally speaking, I imagine there's a high threshold for objecting to a mere warning (the point about triggers you ignored), so I assumed if anyone were actually disputing that this merited a warning, they believed the wrongness of my comment met that threshold. But sure, I was wrong to assume anyone thinks that far ahead or tries to be consistent.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    The dispute OP has, which I also share, is with this statement: >I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged at my observation. No one is incredulous or outraged by anything you said. You pointed out that you saw a lot of inappropriate pictures, some people seem to agree, some disagree, but no one is outraged.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      Disagreeing means being incredulous. If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? Again, assuming you’re trying to be reflectively consistent, you wouldn’t downvote or object to a warning of shock images unless you felt that warning was really off-base. If you simply chalked it up to differing standards, you’d shrug and move on, not doggedly insist that nobody could possibly be bothered by the images. That is what makes it feel like outrage.
      - dspillett 4y ago
        > Disagreeing means being incredulous. > That is what makes it feel like outrage. You need to clam down, and reflect on the concept of nuance. People can disagree and express alternate ideas without being outraged. Not being 100% behind something does not imply complete incredulity about it. Not every counterpoint in a discussion is a personal attack. > “no one could possibly need that warning” Unless someone has said that to you in a PM or other message we can't see, you are imagining the argument being put forward because it has not directly been said, nor intentionally implied, in the rest of the public thread thus far. > If you’re downvoting No downvotes from me, and there can't have been many from elsewhere as your posts colour did not go gray (it has now, several hours later, but not before the “why is _everyone_ so _angry_ at what I said” comment). Downvotes without explanation can be safely ignored IMO: I take them as meaning “someone is upset that I'm right and/or they lack the presence of mind to express their counter view as a valid discussion point”, and I move on.
      - Kranar 4y ago
        >Disagreeing means being incredulous. It's the other way around; being incredulous means disagreeing, but disagreement by itself does not mean being incredulous. >If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? You explained it yourself, you just shrug, downvote the comment for not being relevant, and move on. I assure you this happens quite frequently without any outrage or anger of any kind. It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by SilasX 4y ago

dspillett 4y ago

I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. My comment about you overreacting wasn't about the definition of what is/n't safe for work/life, but that you referred to one polite disagreement as “people being outraged”. > Also, I would say your work is unusually lax if you see nothing wrong with pulling up bikini images there. Deliberately pulling up such images, perhaps for the purposes of ogling them, would be inappropriate. Happening upon them while taking a break and looking as at random site would not, any more than there would be an issue with such an image coming up as you browse a newspaper that happens to have an image of that sort illustrating an article about the current heatwave, or some holiday offer, or a beech fashion event. Sensible rules have room for context. > (Similarly unusual deficit of empathy, while we’re at it.) I find your comment on empathy ironic, given the rest of this bit of thread!

SilasX 4y ago
>I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. If you're saying that people are wrong to not want a massive bloody finger or a drunken flashing photo on their screen, then yes, you are objecting to the warning, and you are showing an empathy deficit. Sorry, where was the irony you claimed to see? Because as far as I can tell, I have empathy for people who don't want those images on their screen, while you don't. Generally speaking, I imagine there's a high threshold for objecting to a mere warning (the point about triggers you ignored), so I assumed if anyone were actually disputing that this merited a warning, they believed the wrongness of my comment met that threshold. But sure, I was wrong to assume anyone thinks that far ahead or tries to be consistent.
- Kranar 4y ago
  The dispute OP has, which I also share, is with this statement: >I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged at my observation. No one is incredulous or outraged by anything you said. You pointed out that you saw a lot of inappropriate pictures, some people seem to agree, some disagree, but no one is outraged.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Disagreeing means being incredulous. If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? Again, assuming you’re trying to be reflectively consistent, you wouldn’t downvote or object to a warning of shock images unless you felt that warning was really off-base. If you simply chalked it up to differing standards, you’d shrug and move on, not doggedly insist that nobody could possibly be bothered by the images. That is what makes it feel like outrage.
    - dspillett 4y ago
      > Disagreeing means being incredulous. > That is what makes it feel like outrage. You need to clam down, and reflect on the concept of nuance. People can disagree and express alternate ideas without being outraged. Not being 100% behind something does not imply complete incredulity about it. Not every counterpoint in a discussion is a personal attack. > “no one could possibly need that warning” Unless someone has said that to you in a PM or other message we can't see, you are imagining the argument being put forward because it has not directly been said, nor intentionally implied, in the rest of the public thread thus far. > If you’re downvoting No downvotes from me, and there can't have been many from elsewhere as your posts colour did not go gray (it has now, several hours later, but not before the “why is _everyone_ so _angry_ at what I said” comment). Downvotes without explanation can be safely ignored IMO: I take them as meaning “someone is upset that I'm right and/or they lack the presence of mind to express their counter view as a valid discussion point”, and I move on.
    - Kranar 4y ago
      >Disagreeing means being incredulous. It's the other way around; being incredulous means disagreeing, but disagreement by itself does not mean being incredulous. >If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage? You explained it yourself, you just shrug, downvote the comment for not being relevant, and move on. I assure you this happens quite frequently without any outrage or anger of any kind. It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html