[lunias]

Mostly agree, but some people do consult religious texts for work. It doesn't strike me as categorically NSFW, but I think you and I agree that that's the issue: the definition of the NSFW category. Going further, I think it's not possible to define in a way that makes everyone happy; it's not as unambiguous as say, 18+ content, so we should just omit it altogether and let people make up their own minds as to what is safe in their workplace.

[Hizonner]

> Mostly agree, but some people do consult religious texts for work.

Well, sure, if you're a priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/whatever (why isn't there a generic word for this?), you're going to consult religious texts for work.

And if you're a game critic, you'll play games for work.

And if you work at Pornhub, you'll presumably watch porn for work.

Normal jobs don't involve any of them. Presumably we're talking about the norm.

> not as unambiguous as say, 18+ content

I will not take the easy bait. I will not take the easy bait. I will not take the easy bait...

[lunias]

> Normal jobs don't involve any of them. Presumably we're talking about the norm.

Agreed. It's context dependent. I don't like the term NSFW because I find it non-specific and subjective. F-Droid's definition seems to be the widely accepted definition which doesn't appear to include religious texts, or games, but does include porn, graphic violence, etc.

> I will not take the easy bait.

;). Presumably because you caught my gist that even commonly used, less ambiguous options are still inadequate.