What is this hexbear rule? We are becoming the strawman fascists are making of us Edit: furthermore I think this does not help federation at all, I think we should follow the same principle that is used in extradition: it must be illegal in both states in order for the person to be extradite, or it needs to be illegal on both platforms to be removed, but again, that might lead to problems if a community deems racist jokes, for example, not illegal so we can’t do much about it, it’s an headache. Edit 2: i think I could be misunderstood easily, Im not attacking the platform, just saying that that’s a generally stupid rule.
Why though? Meat is processed food, I’m not eating a corpse fresh off the ground
I’m not talking about hamburgers here. A raw cut of meat may be processed, but it’s still clearly part of a dead animal (particularly for birds). It’s obviously not as bad as showing an animal’s corpse, but I understand why it would make some squeamish, and marking such posts as NSFW is a simple gesture of consideration for those people. It’s also worth considering that many people would have a very different reaction to a dead plucked chicken than they would to a dead shaved dog, and many people would probably consider the latter NSFW
With that said, I don’t think anyone omitting an NSFW warning should receive anything worse than a reminder, considering how prevalent meat is (assuming they don’t continuously ignore the rule)
A raw cut of beef looks a lot like a seedless watermelon slice, why is the first one considered NSFW and triggering (putting a slab of meat on par with r4pe, v1olence etcetera) but the second isn’t?
I disagree that they look similar unless it’s a very low-resolution photo, but to answer your question, the difference is that the watermelon was never a possibly sentient animal. Them being former livestock doesn’t make their lives inherently less valuable than the average pet, even if this goes against many people’s immediate reactions.
I’ve also never compared meat to rape
I know you didn’t compare it but slapping a content warning on an ice cream, is inheritanrly saying that ice cream should be “punished” as harshly as rape, its like weed, the punishments are less severe but its still considered by the state a drug, just like stuff that actually kill people like heroin and coke
So slapping a content warning on meat/dairy, although with less punishments for transgression is the same as criminalising weed consumption, although with less severe punishments, this equiparates almost harmless weed to deadly heroin and almost un-triggering ice creams to really triggering rape
As I said, I don’t think this is reasonable either.
Never said that it should be on dairy, either. It seems like you’ve confused what I’ve said with what some other people in this thread have said.
Marking raw meat as NSFW is just a courtesy because it makes some people uncomfortable; doing so does not lessen the impact of an NSFW marking for rape, just like NSFW markings for nudity.
Well if u replace “ice cream” with steak my point still stands, if we put NSFW markings on meat, people won’t take NSFW markings seriously
I disagree. A partial animal corpse is not equivalent to milk. And, as I said, I don’t think we should use content warnings for dairy, unless there’s some very specific situation where that’d be appropriate.
By that logic, NSFW markings should also be removed for nudity and any subject less serious than rape, which I would argue includes almost everything. NSFW means “Not Safe For Work” and is applied for a variety of reasons, including “if you’re at work and your supervisor walks by, you probably don’t want them to see you looking at this”. If I wanted to warn someone about an extremely serious subject, I would use “NSFL” or just specify what the subject was in the title