can you just be required to flair "animal sex" and I can go...
oh cool I don't want to see that, so I won't click that, because
I'm a big boy and can go to bed without wetting it.

As an aside I'm developing a piece of [community] software for a group of people that KiA would likely label as SJWs. (In my opinion they've just stewed in the Tumblr echo-chamber for too long.)

This type of content tagging system is exactly the sort of thing we're using to balance their desire for respecting users with 'triggers' against my own intolerance for censorship.

A lot of cool things fall out of such a system! For instance users with epilepsy can either block animated content, or make it click-to-play. Another example is that we can use these content-tags to make sure certain stuff doesn't reach younger participants on the site.

As an added benefit our rules can be much more clear-cut. For e.g: "don't do anything that will piss off our ISP" instead of really vague things like "don't hurt muh feelings."

---

That being said, I'm still not quite sure how I feel about implementing such systems. In my opinion: it enables people to make their "echo-chambers", "hugboxes", et al. more airtight.

I believe seeing beliefs which challenge your own is an important part of personal growth; and giving people the opportunity to opt-out of seeing such views can be very dangerous.
(As a concrete example: I went to parochial schools for my entire K-12 career. I would be a very different person if no one had ever challenged my beliefs re: creationism, for instance.)

So I'm quite torn: I don't want to build tools which reinforce the walls of hugboxes; yet I do wish to respect people's choice to hide certain content. In other words: these tools do help eliminate totalitarian censorship, but at the cost of promoting a sort of self-censorship. Is that a worthy compromise? I'm not really sure ¯\(ツ)/¯.