HOME | DD
MutePoetess — The Roughness of My Skin Offends dA
Published: 2012-10-26 01:23:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 1798; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 29
Redirect to original
Description
If you have read this:
If The Roughness of My Skin Offends YouWhen people asked if she was ok, she only ever told them, "Yes, I'm fine," or some equivalent empty phrase. The words were enough to sate their pretend curiosity and they never asked any further questions because that was how it was supposed to be. "I'm fine," was her anthem and everyone believed it because it was too inconvenient to look for the truth.
For them, to believe the lie was easier because if something was wrong and they were to know about it, then they would feel obligated to ask more questions, and pretend to care for longer, and no one wanted to go to the hassle and she didn't want to be a burden anyway. That wasn't how it was
you know what this is about and my feelings on it.
Related content
Comments: 114
I'm sorry, but deviantART isn't a teens resource for their problems. Please don't treat it as one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
dA is a artist's community, and I feel as though if people in the community want to offer help to other people in the community who struggle with certain issues, that shouldn't be looked down upon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not really helping if it can also encourage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, the comments that I had received on many of those pieces were a clear testament to the fact that they had helped people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think images would help people. It is provoking and it is in the ToS, thus, you're kind of being bratty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Sorry? That's bratty to you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bratty by complaining and not getting their way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You call this complaining? As far as I'm concerned, they've handled it with the utmost courtesy. Unless you want to give an example of how they could have handled it better, I'm not seeing it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not allowed, therefore it is brattish to complain and try and get your own way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's arguably not "not allowed." You say it like it's a clear and obvious thing, which would be fine, but it certainly was not clear at the time. Of all the possible ways to react... Reuploading... Bitching incoherently... Flaming, leaving the site, becoming a troll, just generally acting immature and like, I dunno, any other random user on dA...
Look, if you didn't actually read the content of the deviation, the artist's comments, or any of the replies to the comments on the deviation, just say so. It won't change the fact that their comment chain with you was reasonable and well-behaved like the rest, but at least I'd be that much closer to really understanding how you can have the perspective you do
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't understand why you're beating a dead horse like this. You look like an idiot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm just baffled, is all. Did you read the deviation and comments before piping in or is the explanation for your perspective as simple as most people would assume?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Whether or not you think that the images would help people, I have had people -tell- me that the images have helped them. And the ToS, FAQ #284, does not say anything about triggering images.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They can say it, but it still states that you aren't allowed depicting any self harm or advertising it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Depicting" self harm - that is what I'm questioning. They used to have this FAQ worded to explicitly mean open wounds, but now they say, depicting self harm. This is why I'm putting up so much of a fight. Does this mean I can never show my arms or legs because of my scars? And what exactly do you mean by "advertising"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course they may change and alter the FAQ as they like. You need to adjust with it or see the consequence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You entirely missed the point of what I just said.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They altered it, obviously, and with that you still need to follow the rules.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The rules, their policy, says nothing, nothing about triggering. What a dA admin says to me does not change their written policy and if dA admins are allowed to change their policy just by saying something and not actually changing the FAQ that everyone looks at, there is clearly something wrong with the organization of their policy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but that can be the aftermath of any proper suicide related Deviantions that are images. Think with your head, stop being so butthurt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Butthurt? Really? Are we reading the same conversation?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you really need to reply to out conversation twice? You're just looking for argument. Please just do not respond if you want to keep decent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Suicide? Where do you get suicide from? I think I'm the one thinking with my head here because I'm actually being logical, and you're skirting around the points that I make. I'm talking about what their policy says.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, yeah, you're being perfectly legible and reasonable here. I don't know what this other person is smoking that they can look at you and say, "Bratty," and, "Butthurt."
The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is how you can be this reasonable and still cut. :V
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh, yeah. Because cutting isn't a way of suicide. Not at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, self-harm is most often academically defined as the purposeful injuring of one's own body tissue without suicidal intent. Self-harm and suicide, while may often be seen in the same person, are two different things. To cut with the intent to kill oneself is a suicide attempt, and therefor is defined differently than what is referred to in the scholarly world as NSSI, or non-suicidal self-injury.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Poeple should be more aware of the problem. A lot of people really don't know anything about this.
Showing scars, as for me, isn't triggering. I think it shows the weakness of a person, how they deal with things. And knowing this makes me sad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for reading and commenting
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just because it wasn't glorifying doesn't mean it's not triggering. And before you say that your works aren't triggering, it really isn't up to you to determine that. I really don't care that you self harm and that you don't find it triggering.
Other people might. Like me.
I don't cut but I have a very close friend who does. I have almost lost her twice now from cutting so the very idea of it frightens me to no end and often sends me into a state of panic.
So before you or your white knights go on some tl;dr tirade about how "oh it doesn't trigger me/my friends", I would just like to let you know that just because it doesn't trigger you or your inner circle, doesn't mean it doesn't trigger somebody else. Your circle of friends doesn't represent everybody who may be affected by controversial issues like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Did I ever say in the above comments that my works could not possibly have been triggering?
As someone who has been cutting for several years, I know that different things trigger different people and I do feel as though I am a bit more qualified to speak on this issue than you are. I also know that triggers come in many different forms and so if we were to remove -everything- that triggers -anyone- on this site, we would be removing the grand majority of the work: a photograph of a fist, of a happy family, of a knife, of a strong man, of a thousand different things could all be considered triggering. I have commented above on the fact that I had written clear trigger warnings on these pieces.
I am a cutter and some things trigger me that wouldn't trigger other people, and some things trigger other people that don't trigger me. However, I also know that I hold some responsibility for not looking at such works if I think I am going to be triggered.
I am extremely compassionate toward the plight of those who self-harm, but this does not mean that we are completely free of the responsibility to know what may trigger us and what may not, and to at least try to avoid such works that might when we are feeling vulnerable. If I have put both a filter and warning on my work and someone who knows that they might be triggered chooses to proceed to view the work anyway, that is their choice. A self-harmer or non-self-harmer cannot blame the artist for posting a photo that may or may not be triggering.
Did I say anything about this being related to my "close circle of friends"? Did I not say that I am trying to help many people who cut? Do you not think that that might imply people that I don't know? I am sorry that your friend struggles with self-harm - I would like to be of help to her as I would like to be of help to anyone who self-harms. I am also sorry that you've panicked for her safety as this is also a feeling I can empathize with. However, she, as any self-harmer, must also take responsibility for knowing her own limits. I am not saying anyone should blame her for being triggered, but I am saying that we cannot blame all incidents of triggering on the artist that created the work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did I ever say in the above comments that my works could not possibly have been triggering?
The fact that you are upset that DA removed your works does.
As someone who has been cutting for several years, I know that different things trigger different people and I do feel as though I am a bit more qualified to speak on this issue than you are. I also know that triggers come in many different forms and so if we were to remove -everything- that triggers -anyone- on this site, we would be removing the grand majority of the work: a photograph of a fist, of a happy family, of a knife, of a strong man, of a thousand different things could all be considered triggering. I have commented above on the fact that I had written clear trigger warnings on these pieces.
Nobody is ever 'more qualified' to speak about triggers because they are different for everyone, regardless of their background or experience. Just because you have been cutting and I have not doesn't make me less vulnerable or less knowledgeable about triggers. As stated previously, I sometimes go into a panicked state when the topic of cutting gets brought up because it reminds me of my friend. To act like my experience isn't 'legit' or doesn't make me 'qualified' because I'm not actually cutting is extremely disrespectful to me.
Even so, somebody was still triggered or offended enough to remove it.
I am a cutter and some things trigger me that wouldn't trigger other people, and some things trigger other people that don't trigger me. However, I also know that I hold some responsibility for not looking at such works if I think I am going to be triggered.
Other people do not believe they should hold such a responsibility like you do. I know such topics trigger me, however after seeing so many comments about how DA is backwards (which I do not disagree with) and how their actions were over the top, I thought I would simply share a different perspective on how someone could possibly react to this even with warnings. In no way was it meant to say that you were in the wrong and DA was right.
I am extremely compassionate toward the plight of those who self-harm, but this does not mean that we are completely free of the responsibility to know what may trigger us and what may not, and to at least try to avoid such works that might when we are feeling vulnerable. If I have put both a filter and warning on my work and someone who knows that they might be triggered chooses to proceed to view the work anyway, that is their choice. A self-harmer or non-self-harmer cannot blame the artist for posting a photo that may or may not be triggering.
What you say is true. I didn't mean to put out the idea that all of the responsibility lies in the artist. Well, see my response above. A lot of people do feel like it's not their fault if they are triggered even with warnings put out there in plain daylight. However, as I said to another user, the person triggered may sue the website. I feel as though DA took this action as more of a precaution just so that if somebody got triggered, the site could not be held liable for anything that the person got triggered may do.
We live in a world where people are suing fast food restaurants because they got fat, knowing full well that eating such foods is unhealthy and will make you fat, and winning those cases. Not everybody is going to assume responsibility should they ignore the warnings and get triggered. I wish we could live in a world like that but we don't, unfortunately.
Did I say anything about this being related to my "close circle of friends"?
You didn't. I merely mentioned it because I wanted to keep a step ahead before you did. Too often have I seen the excuse "well I'm xxxx and I'm not offended/My friends are xxxxx and they aren't offended so you shouldn't be offended" used in such arguments. That is why I brought it up.
Did I not say that I am trying to help many people who cut?
I understand what you are trying to do and I think it's a great undertaking, I'm not trying to frustrate you in your efforts. As previously stated we live in a world where people are not only not taking responsibility but suing because of it.
She's a stubborn, prideful girl who refuses help in even the most desperate of situations. As much as I would love to direct you to her, she doesn't frequent DA and even if she did it would more than likely upset her than help her. She's not the kind to be triggered by such a topic. She's empathetic like you are and tries to help those who cut, like you. However, I am not such a person, as you know. I do not blame artists if I am triggered. I was simply trying to provide an example of an individual who might find your works offensive and not take responsibility for how they feel or react.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Someone could say that your circle of friends don't represent everybody who may be affected by controversial issues like this either. Many people are triggered by different things, what defines us is what we allow to affect us.
" I really don't care that you self harm and that you don't find it triggering." <---that could be seen as a triggering statement.
It's a thin line that's easily crossed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And they would be right. Myself nor my friends are a definite representation either, however I'm not using them as an excuse as a defense to keep something posted or something that I said that may affect someone. That is the point I am trying to make. I was trying to get in before somebody made the excuse "well my friends don't find it offensive so nobody should".
You seem to have misunderstood that statement but I get your point.
Exactly, so DA acts accordingly when they think that line is crossed. I'm sure they'd rather remove the deviation than have to go through possible lawsuits from someone who has been triggered or a family that feels like the site is to blame for a member of their family hurting themselves. I know that such a scenario sounds ridiculous but then again we've had people suing McDonalds because they got fat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay now it more clear as to what you were saying. Sometimes I understand dA's method of madness, but sometimes dA contradicts itself.
"I know that such a scenario sounds ridiculous but then again we've had people suing McDonalds because they got fat." <--- Such a true statement and such a sad one at that. Sadly we live in a time where people are quick and easy to make a buck, through their greed it changes the world rapidly. I'm sorry that your friend cuts and sends you into a panic. I wish them the best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed it does. Like how $realitysquared says that underage nudity is okay as long as the model isn't human. I mean...ugh...
I know right? I think DA removed the deviations as more of a liability issue than anyone actually getting offended over it.
Thanks for the support.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that's disgusting. Anything represented as underage ( child ) should not be nude in such a way, human or not. He needs to be reminded that people put HUMAN characteristics to creatures because we wish to RELATE to it. It's like a small gateway allowing it to be okay, which it is not. You know the thing in said question is a underage being, thus being a child. Doesn't matter if it's human or not, underage is child in any way shape or form, should not be looked at as okay in nudity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I honestly think that if $realitysquared was booted, the quality of this site would improve dramatically. His attitude seems to bring the entire staff attitude down. I know a lot of the staff are amazing hard working people, but it doesn't take much for one bad egg to spoil the the whole bunch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never had to chance to speak with him and I find that if I do I might not be as nice I usually am with people. It just burns me when children get sexualized in any media, it's sickening. I don't see why the other staff don't see why this isn't a correct stance on the issue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They probably don't even realize he said that. He seems to work on his own agenda under the other staff's noses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh dear :/
On another note!
I like your views
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ha ha thank you. I'm not always good at wording them though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In some areas, unfortunately, yes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's just so frustrating. They're not clear on their policies at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My usual approach to stuff like this is first determine if the deviation should be up or not, then determine if the policy agree with that conclusion, then determine if the policy sucks or not.
Sounds like it does.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just wish dA was more clear on its policies. And to me, this policy seems so discriminatory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That really sucks and it truly IS discriminatory. Shame on you deviantart. That's just terrible.
I'm sorry that the deviantart staff has to be so stupid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>