Man who posted deliberately offensive thing on social media can’t understand why people are offended : theonion

[–] MsPenguinette 103 points 5 months ago (3 children)

“Just don’t look at it if you don’t like it,” shrugged Simon...

One of Simon’s friends, Jay Cooper, said, “I saw the thing before I knew not to look. If I’d known it was there, I wouldn’t have looked. But then I’d have still known he’d done it, which is the real issue here, if you follow me.

I really like this. Suprisingly salient

[–] Duamerthrax 52 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"If you don't like it, then don't look.", said same demograph that can't stop obsessing over Disney being "woke".

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It really is. It's the same victim blaming logic you get with cyber-bullying. Simply not looking at it doesn't change the fact that it is there in the first place.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Just like trigger warnings aren't effective and actually make things worse...

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Trigger warnings aren’t effective for everyone and can sometimes make things worse is what you mean

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625

Conclusion Existing research on content warnings, content notes, and trigger warnings suggests that they are fruitless, although they do reliably induce a period of uncomfortable anticipation. Although many questions warrant further investigation, trigger warnings should not be used as a mental-health tool.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, right in that meta-analysis, it was showing that all but one study they reviewed indicated that content warnings increased avoidance, and that in cases of avoidance anticipatory anxiety was slightly raised. Which makes sense, that's what anxiety is. The analysis also showed that non-avoidance with a content warning did not improve anxiety responses through time to emotionally and mentally prepare for the content, compared to exposure without a content warning.

So... it gives people the choice to not engage, and offers a better outcome if you choose to not engage. Yeah, there's more anxiety than if you didn't come across the content warning (or content) at all, but it offers choice.

I think the how and when content warnings are used needs to be further refined and more uniformly applied, but this meta-analysis does not conclude "content warnings are a bane to society".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I would also like to see a deeper dive scrutinizing which situations call for it and which don’t. For instance, a game like Doke Doke Literature Club absolutely needs to warn people because it is a rug pull at its heart that switches to a truly twisted, horrific display of trauma/meta story telling, so people would have walked into a potentially traumatizing trap without a trigger warning. A game like that it would be irresponsible to not have one.

To put it another way: trigger warnings are probably more effective in situations where a person can’t reasonably assume there are going to be potentially traumatizing moments/themes/etc. If you are going to see a WWII movie, you probably don’t need a trigger warning about violence/explosions/guns/etc. Though this is just my assumption and I would be very curious to see a breakdown of different situations. Suffice to say I imagine different situations call for it more than others, so making a blanket statement saying they are ineffective (other commenter) is also wrong on that front.

[–] MsPenguinette 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The conclusions that OP made about that study is quite interesting to me personally cause I experience both sides of it. There are certain content warnings that I take note of and decide if I have the mental energy to consume the content healthily. Sometimes I'm completely fine, sometimes the warning has me on edge till it happens, and sometimes I decide to nope out for now.

Tho with a young teen in my house, it's helpful to know if an episode of something is going to go into places that will mess with them or if it's completely age in appropriate. If something has an 18+ rating for an episode but only has profanity and gore as the advisory, I'm fine with my 15 year old watching it. If it's got nudity, sexual violence, eating disorder etc, then it's going to be a pass (or at least screened or having a follow up convo).

Considering they share in a lot of the content I'm consuming, and the majority of my time is spent watching internet content rather than produced media. It's one thing for Netflix to have an age rating and content warnings but I really appreciate warnings on YouTube video since it's really hard to predict what's going to come up.

I wonder if there would be significant differences if a wider range of content was included. For example: Books, websites, games, streams, YouTube, movies, series, music, podcasts.

Based on nothing but wild speculation, I think music would be at the bottom of effectiveness and books at the top.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Really interesting questions and considerations here. My kids are not that old, but I definitely think about how to manage potentially harmful content with them. It doesn’t help that the US has incredibly clear rules about how sex is portrayed on screen, but not blood/violence/gore/sexual violence in particular and the horrors that come with all of that. You go from decade to decade and PG-13/PG just radically shift all over the place - old Bond films are a classic example of this.

In the absence of somewhat legible MPAA ratings I just feel like more specific content warnings are a necessity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Trigger warning...

...work if they are done properly

[–] danc4498 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m convinced most of them are Russian bots. Now with be help of chat gpt

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

give em the old "ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about frogs"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Is the name of that man Lemmy?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

People don't get offended on the internet, they just rage for the bait.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

for some "the spectrum" is become a lonely corner quadrant rarely visited by anyone with tasks to finish or a sense of self-kindness

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Bro is posting from the 2004 Compaq special

[+] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[deleted]

[+] [email protected] -19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Is Lemmy getting more conservative? Now you think offending people is bad?

[–] JeffreyOrange 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sorry you get an F in reading comprehension. Or are you actually masterfully trolling by posting something deliberatlely offensive.

The Onion

The Onion