Hacker News Reader

Comment by vorpalhex | Hacker News Reader

Both of those are extreme opinions on different sides of the spectrum. You should have issues with both of them.

But neither of them, in and of themselves, is abuse. Yes, they might be promulgated in a way that becomes abusive (sending racist opinions repeatedly as you mention, or sending your followers to harass a PR department because they didn't include a trigger warning), but censoring either opinion, outside of abuse, falls into the same trap of playing not the responsible platform, but engaging in censorship. If you consistently censor one and not the other, then you are a biased censor.

View on HN

Why on earth do you think that a request for trigger warnings is an extreme position? Are you opposed to twitter having a "sensitive content warning" function at all, for example?

The wording wasn't trigger warnings existing in a broad sense. A trigger warning on every art installation is a position many would regard as clearly excessive. Not sensitive content, not things that could be expected to be upsetting to some significant minority of the population, every art installation.

Imagine that every time you went to look at a digital representation or photo of art, you had to click through a trigger warning.

Seems like it could, in some cases, be a bit excessive. Although I understand if some people find still lifes of fruit terrifying.

Right, but there isn't actually anyone in twitter calling for a trigger warning on literally every art installation (is there?), whereas there are lots of bona fide racists.

I haven't checked. I have seen enough calls for trigger warnings on assorted things that I can understand where the might-be-a-caricature comes from. I was taking the commentor at their word, rather than presuming to authenticate.

and in doing so you give equal standing to a non-existent problem and the very real problem of the ultra-right racism.

Have you ever watched television? Pre-show content warnings are extremely common. You don't have to click through anything.

I have, though not so much recently. I confess I don't recall a lot of useful content warnings. I might just be out of date.

Television, movies, and game trailers all contain content warnings before airing. Personally I ignore most of them, partially because they usually don't affect me, and because Hollywood and such are pretty good about targeting their trailers (e.g., showing slasher trailers only before a slasher movie and not in front of the latest PG Pixar film)

I don't agree with either, but only one is expressing hatred. Only one deserves banning.

> you consistently censor one and not the other, then you are a biased censor.

Why are we pretending being biased against racism is a bad thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com