It's the other way around; being incredulous means disagreeing, but disagreement by itself does not mean being incredulous.
>If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage?
You explained it yourself, you just shrug, downvote the comment for not being relevant, and move on. I assure you this happens quite frequently without any outrage or anger of any kind.
It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes:
"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Okay. This will probably be my last reply, as there's not much point to replying to someone who ignores what you're saying -- that's not the kind of thing that leads to meaningful, substantive exchange of ideas between curious minds.
As I've said twice now, it should take an unusually high threshold to downvote a content warning. This is because there is disproportionate downside to the people that it's relevant to. So no, it's enough enough to say, "oh, gosh, I wasn't offended, so, let's make sure no one else sees a warning about possible offensive content". (Most forums put the NSFW/L warning on a separate track so it can't be voted on!)
I mean, really. Imagine doing that in any other context. "Oh, hey guys, this should have a rape trigger warning." And then you downvote because "oh, well, hm, doesn't really feel like rape to me, maybe they agreed in advance to do that as roleplay? So yeah, I don't really see the problem with that scene, maybe just, quit viewing this at work, ya know?". Such an attitude would be deeply confused -- and arguably hostile. I imagine you'd react just as I did to such a trivialization of the warning.
The only reason to downvote such a warning is if the warning is clearly false. Say, in the rape trigger example, if the scene contained no sex or violence at all. In that case, yes, I would such call a downvoter -- including myself -- outraged at the mislabeling. That was the (charitable!) model I had of those who elected to suppress the warning I gave. That they thought it was so out-of-line as to be ridiculous and insulting to the maker of the app.
But as I also noted, perhaps people don't think that far ahead. Even so, they lack empathy for not realizing the importance of such warnings. And you no longer have that excuse.
>It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes:
What do you think the proper HN etiqutte is for shock images?
>As I've said twice now, it should take an unusually high threshold to downvote a content warning.
Maybe it should, but whether this is true or not has nothing to do with whether people are outraged or hostile or lack empathy or any of the ways you're trying to paint those who disagree with you.
Some people happen to have different standards than you do, they disagree with you, maybe they're wrong and you're right, great... either way the objection is not with your position, right or wrong, but rather with your perception of those who disagree with you.
The irony in this conversation is that you talk as if because I disagree with you then I have no empathy, I am confused, I am outraged, I am this, I am that... and yet I think if you were to objectively assess the tone of the posts made in this comment chain, it's actually you who is refusing to understand other peoples points of view (lack of empathy), it's you who is confused by not disassociating a disagreement from attributing intentions to those you disagree with, and it's you whose posts are written with quite a degree of outrage.
I'm not talking "as if" you lack empathy, I logically justified why such actions are lacking in empathy, you're just ignoring the clear justifications I gave. Even with the understanding of why others have different standards (which you falsely claim I lack), it still wouldn't justify suppressing the warning I gave. For reasons I gave three times already.
You didn't justify anything logically, you're expressing a great deal of emotions, particularly anger and frustration because you can't accept that people might have a different opinion from yours.
Disagreements are not a personal attack on you, no one knows you or is going to use any of this against you. Remain civilized and respectful with those you engage in discussion without presuming bad intentions and prejudicing them.
If you can't do that then so be it, but this advice is for your own personal well being. I don't really care at the end of the day what kind of unempathic outraged psychopath you've decided to construct in your mind about me, all I'm trying to let you know is that having those kinds of thoughts about people who disagree with you is inherently unhealthy and only results in you becoming a jaded and cynical person.
Choose what you wish to do with this advice and all the best to you buddy.
It's the other way around; being incredulous means disagreeing, but disagreement by itself does not mean being incredulous.
>If you’re downvoting a warning on the grounds no one could possibly need that warning, how do you explain that other than (something close enough to) outrage?
You explained it yourself, you just shrug, downvote the comment for not being relevant, and move on. I assure you this happens quite frequently without any outrage or anger of any kind.
It's not much of a big deal and as HN etiquette goes, you should refrain from complaining about downvotes:
"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html