this has nothing to do with an office or being opposed to nsfw because i’m opening lemmy in public. some of us just don’t want to be involved with sexual stuff even if no one else is viewing my screen.
i replied to your comment because i don’t agree with your expressed stance that we should let nsfw go unchecked and push away people who don’t like that because they’re apparently prudes. why should the onus be on people like that and not on people who don’t use nsfw tags and evade blocks?
the original commenter’s suggestion up top would mostly solve the issue. you disagreed with it, so i commented to disagree with your comment, and noted that i see this as a consent issue.
also i imagine moving to a sfw-only instance does nothing if the posts aren’t tagged as not sfw. it’s also not my goal. i don’t mind having an option to unblur a nsfw post. but i find it problematic when it’s effectively forced onto the timeline.
You can block this comm and be free of the horny posts, or you can force people to start up a whole new community for you to block in exactly the same way. You are asking them to uproot because you think you are entitled to this community but without them. You are still going to have to block the comm, the only difference is the name of the comm you block, and whether you also remove a whole bunch of people from this shitposting community.
or… people could at least try to be accomodating? if there was a horny community, people who are interested would join it and people who aren’t could block it. since we’re apparently not having that, then they should at least use nsfw tags in existing communities. or not evade blocks. what the original commenter proposed is just one solution that makes it easy.
if you block a whole community because of a few bad apples, you’ll also cut yourself off from the majority of posters who post interesting stuff.
this has nothing to do with an office or being opposed to nsfw because i’m opening lemmy in public. some of us just don’t want to be involved with sexual stuff even if no one else is viewing my screen.
i replied to your comment because i don’t agree with your expressed stance that we should let nsfw go unchecked and push away people who don’t like that because they’re apparently prudes. why should the onus be on people like that and not on people who don’t use nsfw tags and evade blocks?
the original commenter’s suggestion up top would mostly solve the issue. you disagreed with it, so i commented to disagree with your comment, and noted that i see this as a consent issue.
also i imagine moving to a sfw-only instance does nothing if the posts aren’t tagged as not sfw. it’s also not my goal. i don’t mind having an option to unblur a nsfw post. but i find it problematic when it’s effectively forced onto the timeline.
You can block this comm and be free of the horny posts, or you can force people to start up a whole new community for you to block in exactly the same way. You are asking them to uproot because you think you are entitled to this community but without them. You are still going to have to block the comm, the only difference is the name of the comm you block, and whether you also remove a whole bunch of people from this shitposting community.
or… people could at least try to be accomodating? if there was a horny community, people who are interested would join it and people who aren’t could block it. since we’re apparently not having that, then they should at least use nsfw tags in existing communities. or not evade blocks. what the original commenter proposed is just one solution that makes it easy.
if you block a whole community because of a few bad apples, you’ll also cut yourself off from the majority of posters who post interesting stuff.