#superstitious posts psa

Q. Why can’t I just use the ‘#rb bait’ / ‘#reblog bait’ / ‘____’ tag(s) instead?

Uh, you can? I’m not in charge of anyone’s specific tag procedures, so you can do whatever you want to.

The reason that a distinct separate tag would be more helpful, though, is that “reblog bait” tags cover... a lot broader spectrum of posts, including things like ‘put x in the tags’ posts or ask memes or other such game posts. (Also explained in my reblog and answer.) If that doesn’t bother someone, then blocking that whole tag means they don’t get any of that other stuff either.

I mean, they could click it open, but they wouldn’t have any means of knowing which posts were safe. So. It’d be nice if you could add the ‘#superstitious posts’ tag to that particular kind, as to make them easier to avoid.

Q. Couldn’t you just reblog them privately or to a sideblog that doesn’t have any followers?

Okay, well, that’s one technique to reduce the spread of them, but it doesn’t actually... solve the fact of seeing them and being distressed. Or, you know, not wanting to have to fulfill a compulsion every 40th post on one’s dash. Or the general lasting anxiety/paranoia, because the problem isn’t always having to reblog, it can be a self-contained stressor/trigger. Plus, not every post is ‘reblog for x.’ Sometimes they’re framed like, ‘if you see this post at all, (blah blah).’

Basically, that’s a fine band-aid and all, to an extent; just, you know... seems like it would be better if people had the option of not encountering the problem in the first place.

Q. I think ___ is a better term / the tag ‘superstitious posts’ for this kind of thing doesn’t personally appeal to me.

ok

Q. “Superstitious” is hard to spell, though.

Yeah dunno what to tell u about that buddy. English is kind of a whack language.

Q. I’ve reblogged a post like that one or more time/s in my life and I’m SO sorry!

No self-flagellation necessary; I ain’t judging on the past. The PSA was just meant to be informative for future practices, not a reprimand. (-:

Q. If I make or share a post like those described, especially if it’s an immunity or good luck post, does it help to include an assurance that just seeing it once is enough / that you don’t have to reblog?

re: anon ask

“It honestly just varies. Some people would find it helpful, others wouldn’t.

Personally, I have about the same instinctive reaction whether it has a reassurance like that or not, because the overall format / established concept in general evokes the response. I’m trying to think how to explain it, and the best I can come up with is… it’s like the disclaimer affirms the rule? Like, to say ‘immunity is granted just by seeing it once’ is still saying ‘x effect is granted by witnessing this post,’ which just kind of… reinforces the general idea of ‘the things said in these posts have the results they state.’ If it didn’t accept the premise, then it wouldn’t be able to offer the immunity it does, if that makes sense.

So, for me, it doesn’t fit into my little brain rules for one statement of the same type to overrule other statements, since they’re all the same form of compulsion. Again, that’s just one example, though – it’s always going to depend on the function provoked in each particular viewer.”

re: standfortheangels

“A- yes! B- [link to above answer] (: hope this helps”

re: tania-grey

“I personally would suggest that immunity posts are included under the tag. [link to above answer] <— I explain why a bit here. Each person will react differently; some people are helped by the immunity posts, so if that’s strongly the case for your personal sphere of blog connections, maybe you will choose to leave them untagged or tag them differently/additionally. But for accessibility for the greatest variation of people, my rule of thumb advice would be that the option to remove all such posts (positive, negative, reblog-necessary, view-only, immunity, etc) is of greater benefit than to cover only some kinds.”

I’m going to break up my FAQ responses for accessibility, so see the next post for the rest of my explanation.