A kind reminder that, **intentionally harmful posts aside,** when you log onto social media, you are responsible for your own self-care. Folks on Mastodon are great about adding CWs, but that’s a courtesy. Attacking someone for posting about something that you, personally, find troublesome is off the mark. If you’re bothered by a post, close the app for a bit and take care of yourself; there’s no need for others to be upset, too.
@adhdeanasl
Old rule I learned in Forums: when you feel that a post makes you emotional, keep your fingers off the keyboard. Switch focus, do sth else, and come back later, when you can answer with a fully functional brain.

LB has reminded me: I recently had someone giving me shit for posting a photo of a stag beetle without putting it behind a content warning.

I get that some people find bugs icky, but they're just out there in the world, being bugs and doing bug shit. Do we really have to consider the feelings of people who don't like them?

Where do we draw the line on demanding things be hidden behind a CW?

To clarify here, I'm not suggesting that CWs are bad. They're not. It's good that problematic things can be discussed and hidden away from those who might find them distressing.

And I also don't wish to minimise those who have a genuine fear of bugs. But it hit me wrong that someone (who didn't even follow me) came along to tell me they were unhappy that I made them see a photo of a stag beetle.

@DJDarren

Just to add some context, platforms with optional content filters usually draw their line at bugs/spiders, gore, suicidal content, epilepsy triggers, porn & hate speech to some degree.

Why bugs? Entomophobia is a sufficiently common phobia, especially with arachnophobia. Can cause unwanted but real distress.

That can affect reactions to a post.

But the bigger point is that it still doesn't justify verbal attacks in response to content others post. Being bossy doesn't help either.

@DJDarren

I think it depends a bit on where you're putting your posts.

If it's only on your own timeline, then it's kind of "on your own head be it": in this example, you're accepting that people might unfollow you for insect photos if they're spooked by insects.

On the other hand, I think it would be bad form to put insects on the "bloomscrolling" hashtag without a content note, because people have come there to see flowers, and they probably don't want to unfollow the hashtag.

@unchartedworlds In the case of this one, I don't think I used any hashtags, just put it out there. It got boosted a few times, and I'm guessing the person who objected follows one of the boosters.

@adhdeanasl Agree, if you aren’t being deliberately minimized or attacked - there’s being upset by something, and at a certain point continuing to engage while upset is a choice you make.

Just like an argument reaches an inflection point where one or both parties can leave or reconcile.

@adhdeanasl yep.

Like, if I got upset every time someone said that a rattling/jarring/surprising event gave them (self-diagnosed on the spot) ptsd, I’d be logging off a lot. Thankfully, I can roll my eyes at it now, but it did bother me for a while. At least I never jumped in to correct anyone— because, while I might have been able to change the heart and mind of one person, there’s no way to eliminate a currently popular word or phrase of the teen-20s’ linguistic style. In most cases, it eventually grows passé or someone murders it, denoting it canceled.

Now I rarely hear “gave me ptsd.” I think it’s grown passé, as even people in their 40s started saying it— which is just sad lol

@JoParkerBear same thing with ADHD.
@adhdeanasl Yes! I think much more so — at least in the present day.
@adhdeanasl I kind of agree. I don't think it's asking too much at all for people to CW obvious, common things that people may not want to see. When it comes to the more specific though, I think letting someone know you don't like it it's OK, but you shouldn't be a jerk about it and don't assume that they will do it