Err... you are
not presenting the argument "If we are going to avoid colors on one site why not the entire net?" - ?? Then who is and/or why did
you bring that argument up just a few posts earlier in this thread?
In retrospect I apologize. Guilty as charged. Rereading my words that is indeed what I implied. Nothing wrong with creating a safe place for specific groups, like atheists, and structuring the site accordingly. Not at all sure that's whats happening at A+, but your point is valid.
Thank you for naming Supernaut, that made googling really easy, and I found this post on the page to which the first Google hit pointed:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=716&start=550#p42682. I trust this is the post in question, as it resembles your description, except for one rather crucial detail.
Seeing that post by Supernaut prompts me to ask: are you actually equating this smiley:
with the smiley, which Supernaut imported from another site to A+ as an image and which was subsequently hidden by a mod there? For easy comparison, I have quoted Supernaut's smiley from the link above under the spoiler below; it's an animated smiley with a fairly large jumping/flashing red text, and one may need to wait for about a second to see the part that could be a photosensitive epilepsy and/or a migraine trigger:
Confession time after a bad night. I remembered that smiley well, and thought it was extreme enough that I could see how it might trigger epileptics. Yet I cherry picked around that as it weakened my defense of my earlier joke. Do others here do that, or is it just me?
I still though it was rather over the top like so much of A+ policy, but note I didn't argue it in any way. And I
was told later that even red smileys like the one I used here were problematic. If you go back a bit in my posts, (I don't have that many but don't have search access now) you'll see when I twice posted a moving smiley with just a little red I hid it with a trigger alert. So yes, it would be a problem if I posted this
there, especially if it moved which I'm told is still another issue. Yet if Setar did it; no problem.
This does not make any sense. What, according to you, do "social justice" and "promoting social justice" mean? And how would it be in conflict with the goal of promoting social justice to enable people with disabilities to better participate in Internet discussions about the society? (and please do not counter with any version of "if A+ does not or cannot enable every possible person with every possible disability, they should not try to enable anyone")
If I had a disability triggered by something visible, and I wanted to use the internet and still function at the end of the day, I expect I would take some responsibility and use a monochrome monitor setup, turn down the one colour that's an issue, or disable images as much as possible .... rather than ... you know ... expect every site I use to manage this on my behalf.
I have some disabilities / issues triggered by avoidable things, and I tend to think it is better for me to take what steps I can to avoid the problem, than to expect the world to conform to my needs (where it is unreasonable, and often in conflict with other people's needs).
This ^. Chill always was better than I at cutting to the chase. (Hi Chill. Been a while. Glad we're on the same page here.
)
Have you read all their pontifications about things such as 'big tent' thinking, Ronja? If your stated goal is to advance awareness of social justice issues, is it really sound strategy to abuse all new members if they accidentally trigger some reaction in a small number of folks there with special problems? Remember one of their mantras is that
intent doesn't matter. It would make some sense on a site for say epileptics. But is a pup-tent of in your face, our way or the highway zealots going to help the cause of social justice for all in any way? Look forward to reading your response. [Motion/flower allergy trigger alert!]
