I read the original argument in context of astolat's post as well as therienne's response.
Specifically, this referred to the VJ, which I noted my objections of here. Short version: VJs as volunteers are extensions of the concomm and shouldn't, but private individuals can.
My specific objection starts with this phrase:
Which leads to the actual problem, which is that I find it basically impossible to not read that as, "we have weighed it up, and we've decided vidder egos are more important than the accessibility needs of people with disabilities."
It's becoming more prevalent to characterize anyone who isn't into warnings negatively--not as a difference of opinion, not even as just thoughtless, but in a way that casts them as bad people and the act of not warning in itself is an act of harm. The argument is being set that if you do not like warnings/do not want warnings/whatever == egotistical, mean, bad, viddres who do not warn are slurred, or in teh case of one entry Integriteee as Arteeests is used pejoratively. I can get more examples if necessary if I can run them down; that's how I ended up reading an accessibility discussion that spoke disparagingly of non-breastfeeders in the middle for no particular reason.
I say this as someone who argued for warnings in the last debate, who loves warnings, and changed my entire policy on warnings as a result of those discussions, it's one thing to disagree strenuously, but it's another when the argument becomes good people versus bad people. It's like that thread about breastfeeding; choice isn't a dirty word.
Re: Via the network
Specifically, this referred to the VJ, which I noted my objections of here. Short version: VJs as volunteers are extensions of the concomm and shouldn't, but private individuals can.
My specific objection starts with this phrase:
It's becoming more prevalent to characterize anyone who isn't into warnings negatively--not as a difference of opinion, not even as just thoughtless, but in a way that casts them as bad people and the act of not warning in itself is an act of harm. The argument is being set that if you do not like warnings/do not want warnings/whatever == egotistical, mean, bad, viddres who do not warn are slurred, or in teh case of one entry Integriteee as Arteeests is used pejoratively. I can get more examples if necessary if I can run them down; that's how I ended up reading an accessibility discussion that spoke disparagingly of non-breastfeeders in the middle for no particular reason.
I say this as someone who argued for warnings in the last debate, who loves warnings, and changed my entire policy on warnings as a result of those discussions, it's one thing to disagree strenuously, but it's another when the argument becomes good people versus bad people. It's like that thread about breastfeeding; choice isn't a dirty word.