Hey! Stop screwing my lunch!

[skreidle]

Video: Ants mate with half-eaten, dying queen | MSNBC -- [A more macabre video from the insect kingdom would be hard to find.]
We can't all be picky about our mates, and ants even less so. A new video taken by Adrián Skippy Purkart, a wildlife photographer from Slovakia, shows the ants swarming around repeatedly mating with their dying queen as a

Comments

[ashen_key]

...this is probably a lost cause, but any chance of putting, say, most of this under a cut? Because JFC, that's disturbing and wrong and probably triggery.

[kittysaysno]

Loooool it's an lj cut ffs

Oh noes somebody asked for a cut WOE, WOE

[logansrogue]

Oh no. You have to take two seconds to consider someone else's feelings!

[celarania]

Here's an example of censoring for a much less generally disturbing topic: http://wtf-nature.livejournal.com/483154.html?thread=18959442#t18959442

And really? The idea of an organism being viciously killed white their fellows try to make with it instead of helping? Yeah, that's disturbing. Not saying that as "Do not post" but saying that as a "Hey, people being disturbed by it is totally normal."

[serious_mccoy]

but you don't get it, it's not a rape trigger, therefore it's legit and worthy of sympathy! (I notice someone was being a dick in that thread, too, but as far as I can see, it was only one person, rather than practically half the commenters.)

Yeah, I always have to wonder about people who act like it RUINS THEIR DAY to put things behind a cut. They mostly seem to object to it- as in, with the most argument involved- when it's a sexual assault trigger to someone. hmm.

[skreidle]

Really? You're not-so-obliquely accusing me of being a rape-condoner (or rape-flaunter, or something) because I don't want to edit a post? A post about ants?

A post that appears to be fine for 99.97% of the 7,269 watchers of this community because it appears to upset two? That's asking for special treatment and eggshell-walking.

[serious_mccoy]

I just find it interesting that you (and others) are so adamant about not cutting it, as if it would personally harm you to do so. Since I'm not triggered by this, I don't have much personal stake in it, so I'm not going to comment further than that- I just have to wonder why people find it so offensive to "give special treatment" to someone who is bothered by the content, in the form of a few added pieces of text to their post. Not much to lose on your end.

Edit: Also, there was nothing personally said against you, so you can just chill out with your first paragraph there. I was commenting on the larger body of comments here, by multiple people. They are also not being accused of being "rape-condoners, or rape-flaunters, or something," so much as reflecting an embedded (and nasty) cultural thing. It's very obviously at work when only one person objects to cutting a post due to a phobia, and a lot of people object to cutting a post due to a rape trigger. Neither post bothers me or the majority of people un-cut, but that doesn't mean

[serious_mccoy]

Personally I feel the same way about cuts (as in, if it's mentioned in the cut, then I'm already bothered if it's a topic I wouldn't like to start with), but not everyone does. Obviously- considering the cut was asked for by the triggered person. I think they would know what sets them off better than anyone else would. Easier to scroll past on your page when it's cut, as opposed to when the post is in full. Also, your last sentence further doesn't count because the poster is not hurt by adding an lj-cut. I can't believe you people are arguing this so hard.

[skreidle]

I believe that'd be a good addendum to the community description, as a warning that entry contents may be disturbing/traumatic -- and thus to not join/watch if one is concerned.

[blasphemusfish]

"If pictures are not work safe (including dead animals obviously), then cut them regardless, and label them accordingly with a clear warning if need be."

FFS! All this over not wanting to cut? Well shit, I'm telling you now. Cut it, add warnings, as per community rules.

[skreidle]

I did shift around the content so the video is under the cut.

It wasn't that I didn't want to cut the post -- 75% of it already was cut, for length -- but that no one was asking for it to be cut under guise of the community rules, only that "someone could be upset by this" -- not that anyone actually was.

[blasphemusfish]

Thanks.
"Someone could be upset by this" is a good a reason as any to cut. Who knows if anyone lurking was upset. It's no big deal either ways.

[skreidle]

I think it was more how it was presented. If the request had been, "Oh god, that video is awful, could you please put it under a cut?", I would've totally been on board with that and made the change in a hurry.

Instead, it came across as "Oh god, gross, even reading about that could upset someone because of some descriptive words it uses"; the letter of the initial request seemed to want me to pare back the paragraph after the video because its mere text was potentially triggery -- but any description of that text in an lj-cut, describing what had been concealed, would almost certainly have the same effect!

[blasphemusfish]

"...this is probably a lost cause, but any chance of putting, say, most of this under a cut? Because JFC, that's disturbing and wrong and probably triggery. "

Sounds like someone who was upset and figured others might be more upset than they were. I can totally understand this, I don't share the sentiment but I get it.
The reworked format is spot on btw, the first descriptive sentence will let anyone who would rather not read more know not to click. I know it's hard with not really knowing what will upset people, we're all different, general rule of thumb here would be to play it safe with the more NSFW stuff, but cut if someone sincerely requests it(and I believe the above request was sincere), because why not, apart from not feeling exactly the same way? The content's still there.