>>311324
The images are already spoilered (if nsfw, which the overwhelming majority of mine are), and are almost always in a post alongside words like "slop" or "sloppa." Context clues exist, read the post to know to avoid it if it's such a problem for your own sensibilities, you can always just
not click on the images and
not interact with that specific content. Nothing else really needs to be done, a non-zero of the onus is on the person looking to avoid it, don't try to make everyone be forced into catering to someone else's sensibilities.
>>311346
The "compromise" is
>don't click on it if you don't want to see it
You don't have to view things that are behind a spoiler, that's why they're spoilered. It's voluntary on your part. Anything else is enforcing one person's sensibilities on everyone.
Yes, I am an ideological purist for self-determination and free will. This case, albeit petty in scale, is an example of enforcing someone else's will (hide the content via extreme methods) on others who don't want it. Stop trying to do so. The onus to avoid it is on the offended party, not on everyone else.