(no subject)

[fan_eunice]

I keep going over the warnings issue, because there have been a lot of great points made in this and past debates about its value. I think it is definitely a good discussion to have, and avoiding harm is definitely something we should all strive for. And I want to say before I continue this that I absolutely respect a lot of what's been said and am taking it on board.

So, I'm trying to work out what my own policy should be for my vids and it settles on a blanket 'choose not to warn'. Which, it isn't functionally different than what I already do, but I gotta say in terms of some (not all) of the rhetoric used in these debates it sure doesn't feel value neutral. It is so easy, I'm told. Takes five minutes! Don't you want to take five minutes and do something easy to stop hurting people? The bit where it is 'okay' to use CNTW is often sorta...tacked on as 'if you must'.

Well, no, I don't want to hurt people but it is neither easy or simple for me. And that undercurrent to the debate, it really does make me feel like something is wrong with me that it isn't. That in saying 'choose not to warn' I'm deliberately and actively telling people (some of whom I care about deeply and/or respect a lot on a personal level, not just a theoretical audience level), well I don't care if you can't watch my vids because I just can't be bothered.

Except I do. I just want there to be vids to watch in the first place, and the anxiety involved in anticipating what could cause problems feeds right into the way my brain hooks on to negatively obsessive thought patterns. The number one thing that can (and has in the past) utterly shut down my creative process all together. Something I honestly didn't even realize was going to be an issue with regards to me and warnings until I tried to hash out a personal policy for my own vids. In part because I'd internalized 'It is so EASY. So SIMPLE.'

And it should be, right? Most of what I make and probably will make in the future is safe as kittens (sometimes literally). Except when it isn't, and suddenly we're taking a left turn in Eunice's brain to war zones and dead pets and suicide and nightmares, and where did that axe to the head come from? I need my happy kitten glitter balloons, but I also have shit I need to work out, y'all. And, okay, so just leave the kittens unlabeled and presumed safe and CNTW the stuff that isn't so much. Except, in things I have learned this last two weeks, even the kittens can't be presumed safe because what if I cut too fast or include too many flashing lights or don't realize just how much that camera shakes? Yeah. And even if I could work past the anxiety to warn properly, what if I get it wrong? I sincerely can't even deal with that. Blanket choose not to warn on everything is pretty much my only option that I can both accurately convey that even though it is mostly kittens, sometimes there be bears here...and continue to create. I don't have any issue at all in answering direct questions about 'hey, does that vid have this kind of bear?' on a one to one basis because that is nice and concrete and specific, all things my brain loves. Anticipating same before hand? Wide open to the kind of 'but what if, and then what if, and then what if' that will freeze me so fast you could display me as a statue.

If I'm gonna vid at all, that just isn't a place I can go in my head while I'm doing it (and yes, even though the evaluation supposedly happens after, if I know it is coming I very much will be thinking about it during). Maybe that means I shouldn't be making vids at all, or at least not releasing them, that I am too selfish about my process. I don't know. But if CNTW really is value neutral, then it needs to stop being the thing that gets added on as an afterthought in these discussions with a dismissive 'oh, but no one cares if you CNTW' right after you've just said warning is an easy way to not hurt people. It isn't what's being asked for that kinda makes me want to crawl under the couch and cry once I tried to apply it, it is how it is sometimes framed.

So, yeah. Um. Shit. I'm gonna post this now.

Comments

[laurashapiro]

I am all about CNTW -- all my fic at AO3 is tagged that way, as is my Premiere vid ths year. I have seen some people who object to it, so I know those feelings are out there. But at this point I feel like it's reasonable for people to do what they're comfortable with while the conversation continues to unfold.

In conclusion: ::hugs::

[fan_eunice]

::nodnod::

I am NOT saying we shouldn't do this, or that even most of the people involved place judgement on CNTW. Only that some of the rhetoric does, unintentionally or not, if that makes sense?

[laurashapiro]

Yep, it does make sense to me.

I think that a lot of people who are actually very much in favor of CNTW have been framing it in a way to try and make it attractive to folks who don't like to use warnings -- like, "well, if you don't want to warn for X or Y, you can say 'choose not to warn'" -- that could unintentionally suggest it's an afterthought at best. I can see how it could be read as implying the judgment you're feeling. IOW, the way some of us are talking about it may be having exactly the opposite effect from what's intended.

I really like "undisclosed content" as an option, too.

[cereta]

FWIW, I have always been pretty firmly in what has come to be called "pro-warning" (I prefer to call it "pro-label," because a lot of the times, things I want to know aren't for the purposes of avoiding stuff, but for finding it). However, for vids even more than fiction, I consider "Choose Not to Warn" both valuable and adequate.

It's valuable because unlike a blank space, it does not imply "nothing distressing/physiologically problematic herein." It implies that there may or may not be, and that lets me decide how much of a chance I want to take, how much I need to think about things like the source and the mood I'm in, whether I want to ask someone to watch it first.

And I consider it adequate because particularly in vids, thinking about the source can then tell me a LOT. I mean, CNTW on a Nightmare on Elm Street vid? Hi, there's going to be violence and blood and scary stuff. CNTW on a Torchwood vid tells me to stay away. CNTW on a Sesame Street vid (there have to be some somewhere, right?) tells me to have someone else watch it first so I don't end up O.O.

I realize that with vidders doing more and more to push the limits of source material, including bringing in things from outside the source, viewers can't entirely rely on knowing the source, but it still gives me a whacking lot of information.

Now, I realize I'm in a position where (a) I don't really have emotional triggers (things that deeply upset me on a visceral level, yes; see above re: Torchwood), and (b) my physiological issue comes down to ocular migraines, which can usually be averted if I cover my eyes as soon as flashing starts, but still. Choose Not to Warn works for me.

[nestra]

Thank you for figuring out how to say what I was thinking, especially "I consider "Choose Not to Warn" both valuable and adequate."

[fan_eunice]

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. And I think most people on the pro-warnings side do. It is more that what you just said, and what I think most people mean, is sometimes framed unintentionally as 'and for those of you who don't care enough to not want to hurt people, here is this other option'

If that makes any sense?

And then, yeah, if I made a Sesame Street vid I would have to 'choose not to warn' it. Which, right there implies that there is something to warn for and not 'in the framework of vidding, I can never be sure that I am able to warn properly due to my own wonky brain and therefore the safest thing I can do is include all content under that label'

I am intrigued by the ideas brought up of using 'content undisclosed' or similar instead of 'warn', but I am also leery of it since 'warn' is so standard in how we talk about this stuff, and for a system to be effective it should be standardized, I don't know if currently that can be used and have the same function. Am I making sense now?

[cereta]

*nods* Yeah, it's twisty. Because on the one hand, I've been advocating for more neutral language surrounding information we give about vids or fiction. A "warning" for slash is homophobic, but a slash "label" is the same as a genre section in a bookstore.

OTOH, to some extent, the value of "choose not to warn" or "caveat lector" (caveat spector?) is "there is Stuff here." That's particularly its value as a compromise in the warnings debate.

And yes, the idea that CNTW is about not caring is...I'm going to be diplomatic and say it's oversimplifying. There are many, many reasons for CNTW, not the least of which is, as you say, not trusting one's own perception of what is and is not a problem for any given viewer. I run into that same issue on spoilers.

[mresundance]

Oh yes, this x 100. I have nothing to add, really.

[ex_thecitymouse753]

Interesting comment - I was wondering if you felt the same way about archives or journals which are labeled CNTW as default. Would you find it more appropriate for people posting vids, fics, and art to individually label each piece as either CNTW or 'no warnings apply'?

[cereta]

I think that depends on your definition of "appropriate." I mean, for my own reading preferences, I certainly prefer fiction being labeled with certain individual information, and journal posts (which IMHO are generically different enough to be awkwardly shoe-horned in here) labeled in some way as to give a clue to content (something I've struggled with myself in regard to people's competing spoiler levels). However, if an archive says it does not label stories for X, Y, or Z, or anything beyond fandom, or whatever, that is certainly their prerogative. It may happen that my response is that I simply won't read there unless a story is recced. Likewise, I have stopped reading some of the people on my list in certain fandoms - hell, I pretty much read no one in SPN for seasons at a pop because I never knew who was posting about Wincest.

I will add that if you're talking about posting fic and vids and art on individual journals, then I would say it's wise to remember that people might get linked there who are not aware of the journal policy, and therefore restating it in the individual post, or linking to the policy, seems wise. Archives, though, can more easily have a general statement, the same way a convention can.

Which is a long way of saying, "they can decide what they want to do, and I'll decide what I want to do."

[ex_thecitymouse753]

That makes a lot of sense and I'll definitely put it into consideration WRT my own labeling practices.

via network

[softestbullet]

Too tired to really respond, but, this reminds me of BFP's post about how "easy" it is to do image descriptions and video transcripts.

Also, *sympathizes*

Re: via network

[fan_eunice]

That is a great link, thank you.

[celli]

*hugs* I totally support you in this.

[fan_eunice]

*snuggles mah Celli*

[such_heights]

well I don't care if you can't watch my vids because I just can't be bothered.

Personally? Seeing 'choose not to warn' never, ever makes me feel that way. Honest.

I think that CNTW is an important option to have for all kinds of reasons, but in particular because it addresses some of the competing needs that can go on with this issue - some people use warnings, some people find providing them very stressful and anxiety-inducing. CNTW is a good way around that, and for me anyone who actively picks that is taking the five minutes to think about the issue, which I'll always appreciate.

I tend to read CNTW as meaning some of the following: 'I'm opposed to providing content labels on my work, this is me letting you know', 'I find it difficult to know what content labels to provide in general, this is me letting you know', 'this particular work is hard to categorise', 'my brain's tired, I don't even know any more', 'I don't want to spoil this vid', and so on. All of which I totally get.

And I agree with cereta that a combination of CNTW and a fandom can often provide a decent amount of information by itself. If it's a Doctor Who vid I'd probably risk it, and if it's a Dollhouse vid I wouldn't, etc.

Also, and obviously feel free to ignore this, another thing that some of my rlist do that I find useful is include a link to a post outlining their warnings policy in their metadata, rather than saying 'choose not to warn' or whatever. It gives a bit more space to expand on things if you'd like to - for instance, I find it useful to know whether or not people who don't warn are happy to be contacted privately with questions, as that's not always clear.

Er, /ramble?

[fan_eunice]

*nodnod* and I really do appreciate the way there has been an effort to include nuance, especially wrt to CNTW by a lot of people this go round.

I think mostly I just want 'easy! simple! takes five minutes!' removed from the shorthand, 'cause it isn't always and acknowledging that up front in the inclusion of CNTW (a decision that in itself isn't always an easy one) in the options goes a long way, I think, to removing perception of value judgment when it is recognized clearly.

include a link to a post outlining their warnings policy in their metadata, rather than saying 'choose not to warn'

That actually is useful! :) I think it probably deals better with my issue of 'I have this blanket policy not because there ARE bears, but because I can't promise there aren't bears even though there usually aren't, and my brain won't allow me to consistently or effectively spot bears, so y'know, probably kittens but maybe not? And if you ask me specifically about *a* bear, I can almost certainly give you a heads up.'

Which is just too unwieldy to fit on a standard vid announcement, and 'choose not to warn' just looks weird when it is a vid about hugs.

Also, speaking of vids and totally randomly, OMG I am chomping at the bit to see your Amelia vid. It is motivation to actually finish the Eleventy project, 'cause I can watch other Doctor Who vids once I'm no longer actively vidding the same source and OMG YOU MADE A BABY AMELIA VID AND I WANNA SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Ahem.

[mresundance]

The vid is AMAZING.

So you better FINISH UP.

So you can watching AMAZING VIDS and we can get some AMAZING VIDS from you.

[fan_eunice]

OMG I AM TRYING.

Finishing up the Nightmare vid took a lot out of me (cathartic, but draining). Recharge the batteries a bit, and then onward to finishing the Eleventy project. :D

[thingswithwings]

*nodnod* I definitely think that CNTW is a valuable member of the warnings/labels options, for all the reasons you've stated, as well as the ones that such_heights points out. This idea that CNTW is somehow something that makes the vidder/writer in question an awful person is really foreign to me, and I was surprised to see it keep coming up in recent discussions - because choosing not to warn IS a helpful data point for many people! It DOES demonstrate care and thoughtfulness (and, sometimes, it can demonstrate real honesty that might be more useful than otherwise - like, seriously, 'I don't know how to warn for this thing I've just made' is really honest and useful). So, anyhow, I'm glad you made this post, because I've often been the kind of person to say "just take five minutes and put a warning/label on it" - by which I meant, "any warning, including CNTW, which is obviously one of the ttly valid options available to everyone and indicates the same level of care as any other warning." Because of course for some people, or some vids, it's not easy to come up with the other kinds of categorical warnings for specific content! Of course! But obviously not everyone hears it that way, when I say it - so I will be more careful in the future.

But, just for the record, I don't think that CNTW makes anyone any kind of bad person, and I often smile and nod when I see it used - because I know the person who wrote it is providing as much information as they are comfortable providing or specifying, and have taken the time to figure that out, and that to me IS really different than not saying anything at all.

[fan_eunice]

*nod*

I do think a lot of it is crossed wires, and language in general being kinda tricky. And also in this round there is a bit of assumption that things implied or shorthanded based on the previous warnings debate with fic will be understood, or understood to mean the same thing with regards to vids. Which leads to a bit of, I dunno, impatience? Like, didn't we go over this already when for a lot of people, we didn't and I think that leads to a certain amount of defensiveness as well.

Vidding is a different medium with different aspects to it (as evidenced by the physical triggers for flashy lights and such), and a related but different culture with a different history on these issues. And though there is crossover, there are many vidders who aren't particularly involved with fic or the meta discussions surrounding it, and why should they be? I don't expect people whose primary fannish involvement is fic to know the details of the Nummy Treat schism or the nuances of the issues involved, or how they might apply to fic, ya know?

Which is an entirely different tangent, and now I am rambling.

[klia]

Except, in things I have learned this last two weeks, even the kittens can't be presumed safe because what if I cut too fast or include too many flashing lights or don't realize just how much that camera shakes? Yeah.

You're right, this whole debate is nothing but grey area that some folks are trying to pass off as easy peasy. I remember seeing someone using coathangers as an example of something innocuous that vidders wouldn't have to warn for, and all I could think was, you know, there probably WERE people for whom coathangers were a trigger, so, basically, NOTHING could really be deemed "harmless."

If I'm gonna vid at all, that just isn't a place I can go in my head while I'm doing it (and yes, even though the evaluation supposedly happens after, if I know it is coming I very much will be thinking about it during). Maybe that means I shouldn't be making vids at all, or at least not releasing them, that I am too selfish about my process. I don't know.

That's really the crux for me. Just as every viewer is an individual with their own personal issues, every vidder is an individual, too. It's great that so many vidders don't feel hampered or limited by any of this, but what's no big deal for some equates to self-doubt, self-censorship, or paralysis for others.

Before the whole warnings debate even happened, I was already feeling limited and self-censory because all of the shoulds and shouldn'ts that had been circulating in fandom for the past year or two. Throw in the attitude that CNTW/"undisclosed content" means to some very vocal individuals that you're a horrible, selfish, arrogant, faux-artiste, and, well, negative reinforcement isn't exactly inspiring, is it?

[fan_eunice]

Yeah, it just...simple isn't a word I'd use to describe any of this. Doesn't mean we just don't deal with it, 'cause that is unfair in a different way, but there is no one size fits all 'right' answer. Which is kinda my philosophy on life in general, heh.

here from a delicious link

[legionseagle]

Why some people might warn for coathangers or feel such a requirement was necessary:

In circles I frequent "coathangers" would be seen as a reference to Vera Drake era backstreet abortion and might be used as a code for that eg "If the Supreme Court repeals Roe v. Wade the US will be back to coathangers".

Certainly it's an image I could imagine a film-maker using to evoke that concept. However, if a filmmaker were of an age/background not to be aware of that whole context, it would be very easy for them to put in a coathanger image (a female character compulsively untwisting a wire coathanger to indicate a troubled state of mind, for example) which was upsetting to people who applied that context but connoted something entirely different to the filmmaker.

Which reinforces your point that people are trying to pass something very complex off as something easy-peasy.

Re: here from a delicious link

[klia]

Coathangers aren't innocuous in my mind at all. As you mentioned, it evokes the issue of abortion (I saw The Other Side of Midnight as a kid, and the only scene I still remember, all too vividly, is the coathanger scene), and also physical abuse (I knew kids whose parents whacked them with wooden coathangers). And there must be literally millions of other equally "innocuous" things. So, yes, VERY complex.

[sophinisba]

*hugs* I don't know anything about vidding but I just want to say that I totally get what you're saying in this post and I think your decision is a good one.

[fan_eunice]

*hugs*

[elynross]

*hugs you hard*

I'm liking the alternate "content undisclosed," myself, fwiw. And for those people who (wrongly, IMO) assume that "choose not to warn" means there's nothing to warn for, I think this more clearly states "I'm not revealing what's in the vid, but I'm letting you know that up front." I think that you're thereby doing exactly what (from what little I've let myself see so far) is asked for: you're providing the information needed to let people make their own choices. If content is undisclosed, then it's up to them whether to watch, or not.

And that's key, to me. Regardless of what you put on things, whoever watches your vids is choosing to do so. It's great, if people want to disclose specific content that they believe may be harmful to someone, but if anyone chooses to not do so, then I still have my choice as to whether to watch, or not.

[fan_eunice]

I am fond of 'content undisclosed' if only because it dodges the Sesame Street problem from above, especially in terms of vidding which is turning out to have an entirely separate category of 'trigger' based around physical triggers to migraine or seizure.

I don't feel like it would be safe or responsible for me to leave a Sesame Street vid unlabeled if I am unable to evaluate it for both kinds of triggers. At the same time 'choose not to warn' does kinda give the implication that Oscar will snap and go on a bloody rampage, leaving Big Bird dead in the street.

[littleheaven]

I don't think it's possible to anticipate everything that might cause someone harm. Because human beings are so unique and varied, everyone's terrifying thing can be different. Mine is puke. I'm better than I was at dealing with it, but I still choose to avoid watching it wherever possible. But I don't expect people to warn for puke in their vids. I watch at my own risk and try to avoid things I think might be potentially upsetting. And I used to be badly triggered by it, so I know what it's like to be thrown into a spiral of doom and freaking out.

That said, I would choose to warn for things that are fairly obvious universal upsetting themes. Like my Secretary vid - it would need warnings for self-harm and domestic violence at the very least. I don't have an issue with that, but I'm never going to try to anticipate everyone's reaction to it. I can't, however much I want to protect people from things that cause them pain. It's just impossible.

[fan_eunice]

I think, like, if your brain works like mine does? Even the obvious universal themes aren't so easy. I considered doing a proper detail warn for on the Nightmare On Elm Street vid and even thinking about it set me into a "OH GOD WARN FOR ALL THE THINGS?" spiral. And that one should be pretty obvious.

For more subtle or on the border types of things I can see where even someone not dealing with an anxiety disorder might be overwhelmed. And that is before we even touch on the other reasons someone might be uncomfortable or have reservations about a warnings system. CNTW is great, but not so great if there is a sense of judgment about using it, or if the decision to opt in to a warning system at all is treated as an easy or simple thing. A good thing? I would tend to agree that it is as long as CNTW is a valid and positively supported option. But not an easy thing.

[littleheaven]

I think the main problem is that if you do choose to warn, it seems people are automatically expecting you to then anticipate EVERY thing in your vid that might cause someone distress. It's that all or nothing expectation that's hard. Because I would never in a million years presume to know what might upset someone. I know somebody who is physically nauseated by sweat, for example. Would I think to warn for sweat? No.

Would it work if I put: Choose to warn for self-harm, domestic violence, sexual themes, CNTW for all other content? Can you do that? Because that's basically saying "here are some big red-flag warnings, but there might be other stuff some people are uncomfortable with."

[commodorified]

I don't know what to say except I love you for being so... so thinky and so caring about this, when I can SEE how tricky it is for you.

And that you are one of the people who makes me believe that we'll find a way.

[fan_eunice]

I don't really know if I am? I've had deeply mixed feelings about a lot of the stuff that has gone down recently and I'm not sure I've handled it very well. Stayed quiet where I think I should've spoken up, spoken when maybe I shouldn't have because of frustration over not saying anything. And...I dunno. I think I am not really cut out for these kinds of debates at all.

[commodorified]

I dunno if you are either, but you keep thinking and trying and falling and getting up. And it makes me love you.

[lilacsigil]

"Choose not to warn" is *valuable* to me, because it opens a dialogue - there may be something here to warn for, and I know the vidder or ficcer is aware of the warnings debate, so I feel comfortable contacting them for more information. Not putting anything gives me no information and no possibilities.

[fan_eunice]

Absolutely, I think it is valuable. I just don't think it is easy, and that is my stumbling block in some (not all) of the rhetoric that gets used. 'Cause 'well you can always CNTW' often comes after 'but it is so easy, takes five minutes, how hard can it be?'

And if it is easy and simple to add a warning, or to make the decision to opt into a warnings system in the first place then it is kinda implied that having anxiety or discomfort or reservations about a warnings system (including cntw), and/or opting for CNTW is just being lazy or not caring enough. I know that isn't the intention most of the time, but it is how it can read.

I'd just really like to see, and I think there are attempts to shift this way, a more proactively positive emphasis on CNTW that is not an afterthought, and room to work through discomfort about opting in. A good thing to do? Yes! Simple and easy? Not always, for many reasons.

I am possibly not making sense and rambling?

[ex_thecitymouse753]

Here from metafandom.

Great post - I'm a fic writer, not a vidder, but I'm also someone who labels most of their work with CNTW. I think it's great because it does suggest that some disturbing content may be present, without necessarily spoiling the content. It also helps to cover all bases because yes, as you've said, sometimes - and I know this is privilege talking but it's true all the same - I don't think about whether or not something is a potential trigger, even when it is.

The main argument against CNTW I've heard is that using CNTW makes videos or even archives accessible to someone with one or two specific triggers because they have no way of knowing if those are present. Though I think your comment about 'feel free to ASK if those things are present' does anticipate that argument, I do know a lot of people feel anxiety about asking strangers if X or Y Thing is present in their work. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this?

[fan_eunice]

I think..I guess not everything is for everyone, nor does it have to be. Especially in the case of individual fanworks. Not everyone's reasons for doing so are going to make sense to me, and I can wish they would, but if CNTW is a value neutral option then it doesn't make sense to expect people to justify or make exceptions to that decision (though they can), and doing so is going to feel judgmental.

I can see where that is trickier in the case of an archive or a convention, and I'm still sorting my thoughts on that and listening. I think where I stand right now is that I think information should absolutely be available for those who need it to more safely navigate a space like Vividcon, but I don't think there's one right way to approach the how of it, and a lot of factors to balance in hashing that part of it out.

[ex_thecitymouse753]

Thanks for your reply. It is a complicated issue and I'm still turning it around in my head myself.

[windtear.livejournal.com]

Hey, here from metafandom.

I confess that I've been of the CNTW=does not care mindset, and that has mainly been because when the whole issue first blew up as a major thing and I tried to investigate the proponents of the don't-warn sector's opinions, that's what three of the four boiled down to - "I don't care really, there's lots out there if you're triggery, I don't want to have to, you know, think about it!". So the CNTW is a great big AVOID sign for me.

I will still categorically avoid stuff marked CNTW, but you've made me think harder about it. So thank you.

[fan_eunice]

Hey, thank you for reading and listening. Is a rough one, and I get why it ends up so heated and frustrating and with such bad feelings all around.

here via metafandom

[burnmybridges]

You have no idea how much I love you for making this post. I don't know you, but my feelings on warnings are similar...I don't want to hurt people, but the anxiety it would cause me by trying to warn correctly would mean that it just wouldn't be worth my while sharing anything in the first place. The fear of getting into wank because I missed out something even though I really did try my hardest and the feeling that control was being taken from me by those who insist extensitve warning labels are the only way would turn the fun and joy of creating stuff into a total upset.

The fact that people are not willing to accept that, for some of us, feeling as though we're forced to warn is a trigger does make me really angry and so I generally stay out of all warnings debates because I know people wouldn't understand my point of view.

So to see a post like this from someone who can explain way more eloquently than I ever could...thank you so much. Would you mind if I linked to it ever if I need to explain why I CNTW?

Re: here via metafandom

[fan_eunice]

*many hugs from a stranger*

Is tricky this one, 'cause it really does seem like such a simple thing on the surface. You can absolutely link if you want. Is public post :)

Re: here via metafandom

[burnmybridges]

Thank you. *hugs* And yeah, where I'm sitting from the Choose Not To Warn side of the argument does seem very simple, but I think too many people are into getting offended on behalf of others, or are just itching to cause wank no matter how much an author tries to explain her/his point of view. It's so depressing, and I mostly try and keep out of it because some of the langauge used by the Pro Warnings side is not good for my own mental health.