I think much of my issue around the Content Warning culture on Mastodon, is the vocabulary. "Content Warning" has a very specific meaning in other contexts. Here, it is more like "Content Filter" or "Subject Line," to give readers a choice to expand or not.
This feels wrong, because of other contexts where majority folks have tried to express trauma or pain at even having to hear about the racism that impacted me. Feels very much like "Ban teaching civil rights, so white kids don't feel bad."
@knowtheory Two things feel wrong:
The name of "Content Warning." This puts using the feature in the same bucket as not showing depictions of gore, or content that can trigger PTSD.
And the guidance to use the feature. Someone saying "Put a content Warning on that!" on issues of describing racism, feels a lot like "Descriptions of you existing as a Black person cause me trauma on the same level as other stuff that should be behind Content Warnings! You just harshed my vibes!"
You'll notice that in US society, Black people experience more repercussions for speaking about racism, than racists get for being racist:
* Kaepernick, fired and unhire-able
* Jemele Hill, fired
* Black employees at Coinbase, let go/asked to leave
* Inmates at Rikers who complained, email and letters taken away
So the "Hide your distasteful Black experiences" message gets mixed up in the "Use subjects" message, in a way that makes people understandably upset.
@knowtheory @mekkaokereke
Current convo about what to call CWs.
Mekka 
๐๐๐๐
Ted Han โ
้่ๅฎ
hereforasec
Greg Price