97
(CW: CSA) Vivek Ramaswamy runs an attack ad against his opponent Amy Acton, claiming that she's lying about being a survivor of CSA and featuring Acton's mother, who sided with Acton's abuser. (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by to c/slop@hexbear.net
NSFW 29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For those who don't know the context:

CW CSAVivek Ramaswamy has leaked an attack ad against his Democratic opponent, Amy Acton, featuring Acton's mother. Acton cut off contact with her mother fifty years ago for siding with her step father, who molested her, against her.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 day ago* (6 children)

Your post is written like how liberals talk about cops shooting children. I explained in my comment why it feels like hiding the truth.

You marked the post NSFW. NSFW means content for ages 18+. Children should know that Republicans are pedophiles. Children should know that JD Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy support pedophilia. Why? Because knowing about the existence of pedophiles protects children from pedophiles

Republicans don't want sex education to be taught in public school because then children don't know that they are being abused. Children need to know that child abusers exist for their own safety. Hiding warnings from children does not protect children, it endangers children.

Also the site rules says that depictions or topics of triggering content needs a content warning. This thread is not a depiction or topic of triggering content. The topic is political ad which stars someone who abused children. The post is not discussing the topic of children being abused. The thread does not show any pictures of any children being abused.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 30 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    You marked the post NSFW. NSFW means content for ages 18+.

    I have seen posts removed for not being marked NSFW when they otherwise included a content warning, because the thumbnail could be triggering. I've adjusted my posting accordingly.

    Children should know that Republicans are pedophiles. Children should know that JD Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy support pedophilia. Why? Because knowing about the existence of pedophiles protects children from pedophiles

    This story is over 24 hours old and I've seen no one else post about it. Why didn't you post about it yourself? Why don't you make a post in another comm now?

    Also the site rules says that depictions or topics of triggering content needs a content warning. This thread is not a depiction or topic of triggering content. The topic is political ad which stars someone who abused children. The post is not discussing the topic of children being abused. The thread does not show any pictures of any children being abused.

    Why would I not assume that the content might be triggering when the whole topic is CSA? I'm trying to adhere to the rules of the site to the best of my ability.

    I have changed the title to be more clear because I think you're substantively right, but you shouldn't throw around accusations that I'm covering for child abusers when I'm the only one posting about this in the first place, and when I'm trying to follow site rules.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    I am not accusing you of anything. I wrote in my first comment that your post is part of a trend, meaning that the blame is not placed on you. I'm sure that you don't have malicious intent.

    I love that you invoke "why don't you post it?" (my tone: sincere, not sarcastic) This is something I love to say myself when my posts receive criticism. It's a great response to people who have 0 posts and a bunch of comments. It also encourages other people to post. Also, it's non-confrontational.

    Why haven't I posted it? My answer is simply "I was posting other things". I admit that I saw the Vivek Ramaswamy ad story yesterday and I simply did not post it because I was fixated on news stories about the white powder mailings.

    I have reposted things that I felt were wrongly marked as NSFW in the past. For example, a news story about a cop shooting a person was marked as NSFW. Why shouldn't a news story about a cop shooting a person be marked NSFW? Because children deserve to know that cops are violent murderers, for the safety of children. The news article that I posted did not have images of the shooting.

    The site rules says "Triggering content should be placed inside a spoiler tag. Post images that depict triggering content should be marked NSFW. Post titles should contain warnings at the beginning. Use established abbreviations where possible." The rule says "images" and "depict", both of these words means picture. This is the only time that the site rules mentions using NSFW tag. This should mean that images of a shooting would be marked NSFW but a news story describing a shooting without images doesn't need to be marked NSFW, but could still be prefaced with a content warning.

    I wrote my comment out of frustration at the trend of overly censoring things that are happening outside. This is a trend that I've been frustrated about for years and I've commented about before. The intention of my comment was not to criticize you but to draw attention to the trend of overly censoring events that are happening outside.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 19 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm going to be honest, this story made me so angry I could hardly think straight for a few hours, and that plus my concerns around the site's policies meant that I found it difficult to think of a good title or a way to present this, and I probably bungled it. Your criticisms were probably somewhat warranted, but I get very annoyed when I see criticisms of my posts in my messages, and I might have reacted more strongly than I should have .

    The site rules says "Triggering content should be placed inside a spoiler tag. Post images that depict triggering content should be marked NSFW. Post titles should contain warnings at the beginning. Use established abbreviations where possible." The rule says "images" and "depict", both of these words means picture. This is the only time that the site rules mentions using NSFW tag. This should mean that images of a shooting would be marked NSFW but a news story describing a shooting without images doesn't need to be marked NSFW, but could still be prefaced with a content warning.

    I'll note this for the future

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •