RQ13: Graphic

[disconscious]

Inspired by a post by throwingstardna:

RQ13: Should graphic images be put under a lj-cut and be accompanied with a warning?

Sub-RQ13: Were the pictures in my last two posts "graphic"? More generally, how do you define "graphic"? What is the use of that term?

Comments

[disconscious]

Well, that would generally be my opinion too, but truth is, I was glad throwingstardna did put a warning because I was not in the mood to see that kind of thing.

Now, I don't know if my mood should be respected in those matters. I don't necessarily think so.

[inertiam]

RQ12--

In your own journal? No.

Sub-RQ12--

I don't think I can answer that well.

[disconscious]

In your own journal? No.

Is that because it is MY journal (i.e. that of disconscious specifically) or do you mean that more generally, i.e. in ANY personal journal (as opposed to communities)?

You could have justification for both positions, the last one encompassing the first of course.

[inertiam]

Any personal journal because it is the owner of the journal's space and if a viewer didn't like the subject matter, whatever subject matter it may be, I think they should take responsibility for themselves and kindly go elsewhere, and not expect that the journaler should take steps to 'protect' them. I tend to look at most issues of cencorship in the above manner. I think that those who would have someone else make decisions for them about what information they consume are not only not taking responsibility for themselves, they are allowing their right to information and thought to be usurped in some manner.

In communities, as the 'property' of the moderator (as well as the members), I think one should expect some rules -- which of course will vary by the predilections of moderators and members.

Regarding your journal though: I think I'd be a bit sad were you to hide things behind a cut with warnings. As a fairly tenured reader, I look at it precisely because you offer poignent, though sometimes shocking, materials and viewpoints

[raistlinjones]

I think only images that are "not safe for work" should be lj-cut for content.

[disconscious]

Ok, so how do you define "not safe for work" and why would you lj-cut images fitting that description?

[raistlinjones]

If something is "not safe for work", it is an image that, were a boss to see it, would hurt your chances of remaining employed. Almost any nudity would count. War photos generally would not count.

The reason I would suggest the lj-cut for those images is so that a person scrolling briefly through their lj at work will have fair warning from images that might get them fired.

[disconscious]

Yes, but should you care for people who have jobs where looking at "almost any nudity" can get them fired? Is it really any of my problem? Shouldn't they change work or their working environment?

[madelinerose]

I don't think you should cut them. If people are your friend, then they need to be accepting as to what you put in *your* journal.

If they don't agree with the pics, then they can just remove you as a friend.

[personimpromptu]

My take on it has always been, they friended you. So they can get the hell over it. If they don't like it, they can unfriend you.

Besides, it's not like it's difficult to scroll past a picture.

Secondly, is this not a symptom of trying to hide from reality? Bad things are going down, but god forbid someone might stumble across a picture of it.