This is the Internet. We are all exposed to things that we don’t like but that don’t bother other people.

I despise seeing photos of needles (especially in use), but especially ever since COVID, I’ve been frequently exposed to photos of needles, such as with articles about vaccination. When I see such an image, I squint and keep scrolling. Because this is my particular dislike, and therefore my responsibility to minimize personal exposure. But I would never suggest, nor even want, such images be censored. Putting NSFW on a vaccination image might make me more comfortable, but it would also further stigmatize what is actually a good thing at a time when it’s being attacked by anti-vax people and orgs. Similarly, spiders are good things (they fill important ecological roles, and are living creatures that deserve respect), yet many people squash them with disregard because they’re “icky” or “scary.” By censoring a completely normal photo of a spider on a general public forum, you are only serving to further the narrative that spiders are scary, unpleasant things that humans should actively separate themselves from.

If you’re still concerned, you can always put “warning: spider” in the title, or only post spider photos to bug-oriented communities and similar. But frankly I think you are unnecessarily babying a small, arbitrarily selected portion of the population. Again, do you similarly try to protect people with other phobias, or just arachnophobia?

What about people who fear snakes? Mice? Dogs? Clowns? The open ocean?

NSFW is specifically for separating out material that could get someone in trouble in a setting such as work, school, or public transit. It is also used as a NSFL filter for gore and other highly unpleasant things that users may want to self-censor (although the two really should be distinct, but most platforms don’t support that).

Unlike many other old Internet customs, NSFW has survived and continues on to this day because people recognize its importance and are generally good about using the tool appropriately. Marking posts that do not actually fall under standard definitions of “inappropriate” (e.g. nudity) only serves to dilute NSFW, to weaken it as an Internet self-censoring tool, and to weaken it means to increase the likelihood that it will be discarded.

NSFW is a critical element to keeping the Internet free and open, because it provides people with a way to control their experience and modify it as needed (for instance, allowing a user to easily avoid images when in a public space like a waiting room and not when in a more private environment). Once you start applying this tool willy-nilly, not only does that increase the likelihood of people ignoring the warning in a future (“I’m going to click this link because it’s probably just a spider or something… and it’s boobs”), but it also opens the door to pressure to use the NSFW label in malicious ways (such as to censor a gay couple kissing because “it bothers some people and doesn’t hurt to blur the image for them”).

Without tools such as the ability to effectively self-label material as NSFW, the inevitable conclusion is the banning of said material (“users aren’t using NSFW filters appropriately, so we just won’t allow that content at all, problem solved”).

tl;dr: overapplication of the NSFW filter is bad

Why is this marked NSFW?

This is the second unhelpfully vague question you’ve posed today about writing.

So it would seem the first thing you need to do is to look up resources on effective communication and on accurately identifying problems/goals. Because I’m unclear as to whether the problem is that you don’t know what you’re looking for when asking these questions, or that you do know and for some reason assume that we can read your mind and know it too even without your properly describing it.

Are we talking fiction or non-fiction? Obligated writing (school, work) or voluntary writing (journaling, fun)? Getting over a hump (dealing with writer’s block) or getting started in the first place?

It’s really hard to give advice without knowing the context of the problem.

Why is this tagged NSFW?

The issue I’m raising here is that (again using an example from the newspaper days) you can have a singular strip that’s “complete,” with its own setup and punchline, that’s still part of an overarching story.

Imagine, say, Garfield, where on Monday Jon takes Garfield to the vet, Tuesday through Friday’s strips take place during said vet visit (each strip featuring its own joke that could be understood on its own, but is enhanced by the context provided by the other strips that week), and then on Saturday Jon takes Garfield home, ending the vet visit saga. Posting the “complete story” would require posting all six comic strips together, even though they were published separately and (more often than not) are still understandable (and hopefully funny) even without having read the other five strips that constitute the “complete story.”

I haven’t seen this mentioned (sorry if it was and I missed it), but I want to question rule 2a:

Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.

Even in the newspaper days, it was common for comic strips to have ongoing plots, with each day’s strip presenting the next part in the story (with the plot usually starting on Monday and being resolved by week’s end, although some were ongoing serials, iirc Dick Tracy was like this). So the way this rule reads, it sounds like you would need to publish all strips from the same storyline together.

I think the rule is intended to prevent someone from breaking up comics that were initially presented together and intended to be read in one chunk, or otherwise truncating a comic (e.g. the meme version of “this is fine”). If that’s the case, it’s a reasonable expectation, but the current wording is unclear. It’s hard to recommend alternative text since so many exceptions exist (what if the panels were originally posted one at a time? what about bonus panels? What if the bonus panel was only published to patreons? What if the strip was reformatted from a graphic novel for mobile-friendly re-publication? etc etc.) But maybe something like this would work: comics should be posted in their original format (e.g. multi-panel strips should not be split up). But this is already covered somewhat by rule 4a: “Comics should […] be unmodified.” So maybe rule 2a is unneeded and only causes unnecessary confusion?

deleted by creator

I’m just waiting for the day my cat realizes I can’t see in the dark like she can, and it’s maybe not the greatest idea to sprawl out on the hallway floor directly between the bedroom and bathroom at night…

This was my favorite strip on the comics page when I was a child. Significantly better kid-humor to Boomer-humor ratio than the legacy strips that often dominated newspapers. You could definitely tell the author was on the younger side (basically the only places to find video game related strips that side of the webcomic revolution). Still had the stereotypical golfer dad that was inexplicably universal in the late 20th century comic strip world, though (yet another reason why Calvin and Hobbes is the GOAT). Zits was another strip actually geared toward children/youth.

Downward slide, checking in!

Obligatory “who remembers the children’s book, Dogzilla (and Kat Kong)?”

The spaces around the slashes prompted me to read your comment like surreal poetry:

is email

emails like fish

fishes or grass

grasses?

Unfortunately you don’t have to go that far to find them; leopard slugs are among the invasive slugs taking over the PNW (I find them in my garden constantly). I will admit, though, that they are super cool, especially when they’re full grown. Watching them hunt is a hoot, like a slow-mo kaiju.

Also some of them have dark spots, just like an overripe banana!

(Not my photo sadly, as I’ve never seen a spotted one in the wild, but they’re out there!)

I’m curious what about this is “mildly” infuriating to OP?

Banana slugs are so cool! Unfortunately they’re being displaced by invasive European slugs. I hardly ever see bananas anymore…

There’s actually a Wikipedia page dedicated to the phrase!

Relevant section:

While the earliest documented use of the expression remains somewhat nebulous, it is generally regarded as having been coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Published in 1825, Coleridge’s first verse in the poem “Work Without Hope” refers to both bees and birds in reference to the coming fecundity of spring:

All Nature seems at work. Slugs leave their lair—
The bees are stirring—birds are on the wing—
And Winter, slumbering in the open air,
Wears on his smiling face a dream of Spring!

One scholar notes an earlier reference to “birds and bees” on columns in St. Peter’s Basilica from a 1644 entry in the diary of English writer John Evelyn. By the late 19th century, the phrase was common enough to appear in such works as essays by John Burroughs and publications explaining reproduction to children.

The sources for the entry go into further detail: https://web.archive.org/web/20210510050626/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-04-cl-15141-story.html and https://www.livescience.com/39316-birds-and-the-bees.html

Yes, but with many more sorting options. (What does “newbie-friendly” even mean?)