one thought on the warnings debate

ETA 06/25/09: I retract and apologize. I misread a comment which subsequently colored the rest of what I was reading. I also withdraw as this is not an argument I am going to wade into.

I have other thoughts and a lot of frustration with regards to this because of many semantic things, but this is the part that is currently frustrating me the most:

When calling people out for their behavior with regards to racism/sexism/misogyny, etc, the argument has always been the assumption of good faith on the part of the person making the mistake, such that the mistake was not intended to be made and a correction would be welcome.

Being told that I am deliberately and maliciously setting out to trigger someone by a lack of warning is not assuming that I am acting in good (though ignorant) faith. It may honestly be that it never occurred to me to warn because *I don't know better*. And having malice attributed to me is not really a way to make me want to learn.

Additionally, and this does speak to semantics: I'm fine with warning for non-con because that is a clearly delineated and identifiable thing. Dubcon? Abuse? Tell me where the triggery lines are and I'm happy to warn for them, but without knowing for sure, I'm going to default to my own experiences which may be further than is healthy for someone with triggers for those issues.

ETA: I am at work and cannot mod effectively. I am willing to discuss, but keep in mind that my time is limited and burst-like.