I’ll note that I had no issue with the post you linked, or this one, both of which use an example which is just sex-flavored and therefore (in my opinion) absolutely harmless. The opposition to those 2 posts actually confused me quite a bit and showed me a lot of people are modeling vulgarity differently than I am!
Again, I totally agree that there shouldn’t be anything harmful with any of these posts, but I do think there is some kind of line to draw between “we said the word ‘dildo’ to make a point” and “the post is literally just data about someone’s sex life”, and I think this is kind of the easiest time to draw that line, instead of later. However, I get what you’re going for.
I don’t think it’s super productive to do much more arguing my case here other than making sure I reword it once so it’s clear, so I’ll do that and then leave it alone unless someone else cares.
I think it’s an error to say “society has an issue with being overly sensitive, and besides, we have stuff that’s way more harmful”, both because 1, we actually still can be affected by society, or succeed in our goals worse by not conforming in areas that are well established, and 2, because that’s just an argument the end-of-the-world stuff also being behind an opt-in (which would probably actually make a ton of people happy?). (I’m gesturing at something similar to “proving too much” here)
I’ll note that I had no issue with the post you linked, or this one, both of which use an example which is just sex-flavored and therefore (in my opinion) absolutely harmless. The opposition to those 2 posts actually confused me quite a bit and showed me a lot of people are modeling vulgarity differently than I am!
Again, I totally agree that there shouldn’t be anything harmful with any of these posts, but I do think there is some kind of line to draw between “we said the word ‘dildo’ to make a point” and “the post is literally just data about someone’s sex life”, and I think this is kind of the easiest time to draw that line, instead of later. However, I get what you’re going for.
I don’t think it’s super productive to do much more arguing my case here other than making sure I reword it once so it’s clear, so I’ll do that and then leave it alone unless someone else cares. I think it’s an error to say “society has an issue with being overly sensitive, and besides, we have stuff that’s way more harmful”, both because 1, we actually still can be affected by society, or succeed in our goals worse by not conforming in areas that are well established, and 2, because that’s just an argument the end-of-the-world stuff also being behind an opt-in (which would probably actually make a ton of people happy?). (I’m gesturing at something similar to “proving too much” here)