Support NeoGAF

[BigDes]

Trigger warnings? Fuck I'm getting old.

Trigger warnings have actually been around for quite a long time mostly in the form of content advisory notices.

THey were and are for the most part an excellent idea as it lets you tell people that there is content in this specific piece of media that may 'trigger' them to relive an extremely traumatic experience, for instance rape.

Like most good ideas it also ends up being abused and because the most common experience people have with a trigger warning are the ridiculous ones that we post images on the internet and have a good laugh at (see the pomegranate gore warning image earlier in the thread) and predictably the concept gets seen as a joke, trivialized and laughed at.

Which is sad because I think we can all agree that giving people a heads up that there might be content in your piece of media that will make them suddenly experience their most horrific moment or moments in life is probably a good thing. Or at the very least a decent thing to do.

Now the typical response to that last point is normally oh what we have to water everything down now to not offend anybody. Which is a response that misses the point in several ways.

It is not about making sure no one is offended. The offense comes later, for people who suddenly getting hit with a scene that makes them relive their trauma what comes first is the terror, fear, down right horror and it is not fair to make anyone have to experience that just to spite tumblr when you could just slap a fucking label on what you create.

Another way it misses the point is that you put in a trigger warning/content advisory warning precisely because you aren't watering it down. You can show whatever the hell you want. Just give people a heads up that there might be some gruesome shit in there.

 

[ElTorro]

As my first post in this thread indicated, I found his (unelaborated) objection to intersectionality odd. He mentioned twitter, I looked.

This process you mention is a quite common and in my opinion unproductive one. You detected a marker (he objects to intersectionality), checked his history, found more, unrelated markers (he expresses annoyance at an article about cultural appropriation, he endorses a certain person), and then let these facts stand for themselves without further elaboration. Which indicates to me that you used these markers to put him in a box and then thought that this is all there needs to be said.

As I said earlier, many or most people do that, and I am not excluding myself. I think it's a natural dynamic. And it is not always wrong, since certain homogeneous ideological groups do actually exist and can be identified that way. But it needs to be discouraged, since it moves focus away from the actual ideas and issues, reinforces confirmation bias, and reduces ones own culture of skepticism. Instead, it just reinforces trench warfare.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I can understand why he doesn't care for micro-aggressions or cultural appropriation when seeing what he has seen back in Kenya about reproductive rights and LGBT discrimination.

“In Kenya, he saw the harsh realities faced by women trying to access reproductive health-care services and how the gay and lesbian community is forced to live underground,” the ACLU explained. “While Mahad cares about many social-justice and civil-liberties issues, he is especially drawn to reproductive freedom and LGBT rights because of his experience in Kenya. He has been one of his school's biggest advocates for comprehensive sex education and has helped to organize events at his school to teach students important information about comprehensive safe-sex practices, something that his school does not teach in class.”​

That group sounds sucky if you can't have different views or perspectives and are shouted down. I mean being called "house nigger" or "coconut", jesus. If you're resorting to ad hominem, you've already lost. Just because you're liberal, doesn't put you on some moral high ground where you can berate people based on their character but rather you should mainly focus on content.

This sentiment really sticks with me, especially in regards to a piece I was reading a week or so ago: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

The idea being that if you're a liberal... you shouldn't necessarily get some sort of moral hall pass for being a dick. You think gay sex is fine and dandy? Okay, then being tolerant or supportive of gay people and gay rights shouldn't be an issue for you, and by your own standards you shouldn't get a pat on the back for it.

With these sorts of social justice concerns there's a moral component and a pragmatic component to bringing about change, and I have to lean towards the pragmatic path every time. I know of no one who has ever changed their opinion by being yelled at. I know plenty of people who feel self-satisfied doing the yelling (I certainly know the "thrill" of the sort of verbal takedown or cutting words and feeling superior afterwards, even if it didn't help anything.) It's worth examining whether we're actually interested in change or just making ourselves feel good (and this is something that I think every person has to grapple with outside of this realm as well.)

 

[Yaboosh]

Are the terms SJW and hippy used in similarly disparaging ways?

Were hippies in the 60s seen similarly by the masses as "SJWs" are now?

 

[Sylas]

Others have addressed this far more eloquently on my behalf so I'll keep it simple. I'm 34, I'm not old, but I would say I'm older. There was no kids these days mentality, my mention of age difference was to point out how long I've considered myself a raving liberal. I'd never do a kids these days rant because I teach those kids every day and for the most part they are better human beings than any of us "old people". And finally I will never ever stop being a liberal because liberals are the side of equal rights and treating humans with respect and dignity no matter what.

But as far as being as outspoken and involved in the liberal community, that is one area that has changed over the last few years because I don't feel like that community is the open house for ideas and beliefs and questions it once was. It's become as rigid and lockstep in its beliefs as the conservative side. And yes on the scales or right and wrong, I believe the liberal side is still overwhelmingly the right one. But I have stopped sharing with others who claim to be liberal because of the rabid and angry nature they will often use to wildly bushwack their way through any even slightly dissenting opinion. As if they are getting some kind of karma points for every time they can chastise or wag a finger at someone.

But what do I know, I'm just an old man.

I will say, I don't think leftist conversations have changed at all. Maybe on a smaller scale they were always very open and genuine places--but on the larger scale, it's pretty much always been raving, mad people that are as unwilling to seek compromise as the right.

Which is really the issue. People aren't prepared to tackle larger issues than the ones that effect their lives. Some people are great at it, but most people have never had to engage with something that doesn't effect them, and so they adopt an authoritarian tone because it's the easiest way to get attention.

 

[LosDaddie]

I've been a life long liberal, proudly standing up for those same issues Mahad mentioned, and doing so longer than most of these college students have been alive. And yet the social justice movement has done more than anything else to push me away from other liberals and make me not want to participate in the community.

This rings true.

I agree completely. I find some of these people frighteningly misguided and narcissistic.

This shit right here is infuriating

Yup.
If you don't march lockstep with the movement, then you're referred to as an "ally". Perfect is the enemy of good.

 

[deli2000]

Your first two posts were



Immediately trying to set the tone of "triggered" being only used ironically, and that there's no actual case of it being used legitimately. Something I disagree with, because I live with it first hand. But no, your "I don't see it so it can't be true" reasoning must be the corect one.



Then you spin it as me saying "Oh I saw one person use Triggered in a dumb way so we should get rid of all trigger warnings". Which isn't what I've been saying at all.

So explain to me how this hasn't just been attempts to dismiss out of hand anything I say simply because my life experience doesn't seem to line up with yours. (Which may be the biggest irony of all considering this is a discussion about social justice)



I already explained the actual definition of a trigger warning. I also explained how, as much as you people want to believe otherwise is ONLY people who are making fun of it (which I don't deny happens obviously, it's the internet), people yelling triggered actually happens.

I wasn't specifically referring to you in either of those posts but the mentality of people using that argument from the vast amount of times it's been posted on this form and all over the Internet. How is that a slandering attempt?

Also if you don't want your argument to be construed as I have a problem with how trigger warnings are used, then don't actually directly post the words "I have a problem with how trigger warnings are used"

Just because people interpret triggers badly doesn't mean thats how they are used. This is my argument. I apologise for my first two posts as they were loaded with snark, although not personal attacks. But can you actually engage is my argument now? Since I've done the courtesy of laying it out 3 times now?

 

[radios shipping overview]

I tend to see this as a combination of a couple of things:

- young people feeling excited and empowered after being introduced to certain sociopolitical concepts and recognizing them out in the world for the first time, perhaps applying them overbroadly

- divisive "us vs. them" modes of thinking that are common online and in person, especially within ideologically unified communities

Basically, people who do this will eventually either be exposed to real life experience and ideas and grow up or (hopefully not) embed themselves further in their ideologies and insular communities.

 

[Squalor]

No lies detected.

The censorship is getting ridiculous.

 

[n00bsauce87]

Piecake, I think you are doing a disservice to the thread if you don't put this quote in OP:

“In no way am I denying or minimizing the appalling fact that, sometimes, racial and ethnic minority students face abhorrent discrimination—even hate crimes— on certain college and university campuses” he wrote. “For that reason, occasionally, there’s very legitimate reasons for these student activists to be worried, aggrieved, and lead emotionally charged protests. I earnestly believe that the best and most beneficial method to simultaneously fight against blatant bigotry and for marginalized groups who are the objects of hate is more speech, not less.”

I thought he generally just doesn't care. But he said in the article that he understands that the marginalize goes through traumatizing shit which would cause said group to go above normal means to get their voices heard.

I'm asking if you can edit your quote in OP please.

 

[Goro Majima]

Trigger warnings have actually been around for quite a long time mostly in the form of content advisory notices.

THey were and are for the most part an excellent idea as it lets you tell people that there is content in this specific piece of media that may 'trigger' them to relive an extremely traumatic experience, for instance rape.

Like most good ideas it also ends up being abused and because the most common experience people have with a trigger warning are the ridiculous ones that we post images on the internet and have a good laugh at (see the pomegranate gore warning image earlier in the thread) and predictably the concept gets seen as a joke, trivialized and laughed at.

Which is sad because I think we can all agree that giving people a heads up that there might be content in your piece of media that will make them suddenly experience their most horrific moment or moments in life is probably a good thing. Or at the very least a decent thing to do.

Now the typical response to that last point is normally oh what we have to water everything down now to not offend anybody. Which is a response that misses the point in several ways.

It is not about making sure no one is offended. The offense comes later, for people who suddenly getting hit with a scene that makes them relive their trauma what comes first is the terror, fear, down right horror and it is not fair to make anyone have to experience that just to spite tumblr when you could just slap a fucking label on what you create.

Another way it misses the point is that you put in a trigger warning/content advisory warning precisely because you aren't watering it down. You can show whatever the hell you want. Just give people a heads up that there might be some gruesome shit in there.

I think most reasonable people are fine with content advisory warnings. They've had those before television shows for as long as I can remember and we have the rating system for movies as well so that people know what they're getting into.

Where the debate seems to come in is what does and does not warrant some kind of "content advisory". I think what people fear stems from individuals suggesting that a whole bunch of stuff that never had warnings should now have them. Then these warnings become so pervasive that it becomes easier to neither discuss or present some difficult subjects in an academic sense because there's always that fear that a student might report you to the administration.

So can trigger warnings be a net positive? Absolutely. On the other hand, there seems to be a real possibility that they can be abused.

 

[teruterubozu]

Trigger warnings have actually been around for quite a long time mostly in the form of content advisory notices.

THey were and are for the most part an excellent idea as it lets you tell people that there is content in this specific piece of media that may 'trigger' them to relive an extremely traumatic experience, for instance rape.

Like most good ideas it also ends up being abused and because the most common experience people have with a trigger warning are the ridiculous ones that we post images on the internet and have a good laugh at (see the pomegranate gore warning image earlier in the thread) and predictably the concept gets seen as a joke, trivialized and laughed at.

Which is sad because I think we can all agree that giving people a heads up that there might be content in your piece of media that will make them suddenly experience their most horrific moment or moments in life is probably a good thing. Or at the very least a decent thing to do.

Now the typical response to that last point is normally oh what we have to water everything down now to not offend anybody. Which is a response that misses the point in several ways.

It is not about making sure no one is offended. The offense comes later, for people who suddenly getting hit with a scene that makes them relive their trauma what comes first is the terror, fear, down right horror and it is not fair to make anyone have to experience that just to spite tumblr when you could just slap a fucking label on what you create.

Another way it misses the point is that you put in a trigger warning/content advisory warning precisely because you aren't watering it down. You can show whatever the hell you want. Just give people a heads up that there might be some gruesome shit in there.

Oh I understand content advisory warnings. I just meant all the kids yelling "triggered!" for fucking everything. I teach kids and hear it all the time.

 

[guek]

The problem with an emphasis on "trigger warnings" is that it demands the world insulate them from experiencing anxiety. What this fails to recognize is

1. Anxiety is a part of life

2. People cannot be omniscient of what may or may not invoke anxiety in others

3. Anxiety can be an irrational response

4. Anxiety can be unreasonably elevated out of proportion to what is a reasonable response

5. Anxiety can be improved through a combination of therapy and medication

The request that others be mindful of what might trigger anxiety, whether or not that trigger in question is a logical inducer of anxiety, is reasonable. It's asking for courtesy. However, demanding that the world conform to manage your personal anxiety is a completely unreasonable request. If bananas trigger your PTSD, it is not reasonable to demand bananas be banned at the company in which you work. It is reasonable to inform in a calm fashion those around you of how bananas might trigger your PTSD but it is unreasonable to become angry and offended if someone unaware of your trigger happens to bring a banana into the office. At the same time, citing PTSD or psychological trauma and demanding the world shield you from those triggers while you yourself do not pursue the appropriate medical management and counseling is unreasonable as well.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

This process you mention is a quite common and in my opinion unproductive one. You detected a marker (he objects to intersectionality), checked his history, found more, unrelated markers (he expresses annoyance at an article about cultural appropriation, he endorses a certain person), and then let these facts stand for themselves without further elaboration. Which indicates to me that you used these markers to put him in a box and then thought that this is all there needs to be said.

As I said earlier, many or most people do that, and I am not excluding myself. I think it's a natural dynamic. And it is not always wrong, since certain homogeneous ideological groups do actually exist and can be identified that way. But it needs to be discouraged, since it moves focus away from the actual ideas and issues, reinforces confirmation bias, and reduces ones own culture of skepticism. Instead, it just reinforces trench warfare.

You're getting one thing in reverse, most of the article felt kinda boring and samey to me, like I've read it 30 times before on twitter.

The objection to intersectionality stood out to me as a odd, not necessarily a marker. (assuming by marker you mean "oh this belongs to that box" ) as I've only ever heard strongly anti-SJ voices object to that, never people who are generally okay with SJ stuff.


The Sommers support makes his objection to intersectionality obvious though, as Sommers dislikes the concept (like most mainstream feminist things really) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q

So him being a fan of her answered my question.

I'm kinda used to people in threads like this having enough of a knowledge of Sommers to see the connection though.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Young liberals acting full of self-righteousness and moral superiority?! What a world we live in!

But seriously it has gotten worse. I used to be a pretty serious activist back in high school and college but now if you aren't going in 100% on every issue, all the time, most of these groups want nothing to do with you. Sometimes I think it's more just a desire for these people just to want to do something, rather than critically thinking about what it is they are doing. They see a problem, think they have an answer, and thus anyone who isn't toeing the line is clearly behind the times or arguing from a position of moral inferiority.

Wish I still had that kind of passion It's just hard to maintain as you get older and the line between "activist" and "asshole" becomes more blurry.

 

[Cyframe]

It seems like the person described, has issues with their own viewpoints as well. Things like appropriation and microagressions can be damaging. And if you really want to understand those concepts individual study could be recommended. To dismiss those notions entirely, just shows a lack of experience imo.

It also doesn't help that the SJW moniker (straw argument) has so widely been used. If you talk about racism, in a calm, civil and eloquent manner, you still get labeled that. That term is used purely discredit and paint others as irrational, while somehow solidifying that they have the true objective viewpoint.

I have intra-communal issues obviously, all discussions are going to be like that. I'm very suspicious of those who say that they're the rational ones, and everyone else is wrong when they label others SJW (I really hate that term).

 

[ElTorro]

The problem with an emphasis on "trigger warnings" is that it demands the world insulate them from experiencing anxiety. What this fails to recognize is

1. Anxiety is a part of life

2. People cannot be omniscient of what may or may not invoke anxiety in others

3. Anxiety can be an irrational response

4. Anxiety can be unreasonably elevated out of proportion to what is a reasonable response

5. Anxiety can be improved through a combination of therapy and medication

The request that others be mindful of what might trigger anxiety, whether or not that trigger in question is a logical inducer of anxiety, is reasonable. It's asking for courtesy. However, demanding that the world conform to manage your personal anxiety is a completely unreasonable request. If bananas trigger your PTSD, it is not reasonable to demand bananas be banned at the company in which you work. It is reasonable to inform in a calm fashion those around you of how bananas might trigger your PTSD but it is unreasonable to become angry and offended if someone unaware of your trigger happens to bring a banana into the office.

I would add that confrontation is always part of therapy at some point. Avoidance is not a desired permanent state. In this sense a class room is even a pretty good setting for confrontation. And if you really cannot handle that than you need do seek improvement before you are able to study. That might sound harsh, but it's also a simple fact. When you are not able to engage with the entirety of your study material, then you are not equipped to live a normal life and need further professional help with that.

 

[Tawpgun]

Me and my college roommate were involved in many social justice issues when in school. We both stopped attending the schools "progressive student alliance" club because it got too out of hand like the article states.

 

[Jebusman]

But can you actually engage is my argument now? Since I've done the courtesy of laying it out 3 times now?

Your argument has been "TRIGGERED isn't a real thing just because you said it was".

How am I supposed to respond to that with anything other than "I see it used in daily life non-ironically, so I would say it's real"?

Your argument has essentially been "I'm right your wrong". What is there to argue?

Just because people interpret triggers badly doesn't mean thats how they are used.

Except that's how I personally, with my own two eyes (and unfortunately ears), see them being used. You can't say that's not how they are being used, when I LITERALLY SEE THEM BEING USED THIS WAY.

 

[Palculator]

“I genuinely cared about these causes—still do,” he wrote, referencing everything from anti-racism to LGBT rights to reproductive health. “I believed I was doing something noble. At the same time,” he added, “a large part of me was not quite in agreement with some of the views and concepts espoused by social-justice groups. Their pro-censorship tendencies, fixation with intersectionality, and constant uproar over seemingly trivial and innocuous matters like ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘microaggressions’ went against my civil-libertarian sensibilities.”

Sums it up well, as others have pointed out, but can't really be overstated.

 

[Squalor]

Me and my college roommate were involved in many social justice issues when in school. We both stopped attending the schools "progressive student alliance" club because it got too out of hand like the article states.

These are the kind of people who protest at Emory college because someone writes "Trump 2016."

It's fucking insane. I dislike Trump as much as I possibly can, but this mentality is getting beyond pathetic.

 

[BigDes]

Oh I understand content advisory warnings. I just meant all the kids yelling "triggered!" for fucking everything. I teach kids and hear it all the time.

Yeah sorry about that whole wall of text, I kind of used your post as a launch point

 

[Sylas]

It seems like the person described, has issues with their own viewpoints as well. Things like appropriation and microagressions can be damaging. And if you really want to understand those concepts individual study could be recommended. To dismiss those notions entirely, just shows a lack of experience imo.

It also doesn't help that the SJW moniker (straw argument) has so widely been used. If you talk about racism, in a calm, civil and eloquent manner, you still get labeled that. That term is used purely discredit and paint others as irrational, while somehow solidifying that they have the true objective viewpoint.

I have intra-communal issues obviously, all discussions are going to be like that. I'm very suspicious of those who say that they're the rational ones, and everyone else is wrong when they label others SJW (I really hate that term).

I maintain the stance that complaining about a term being adopted for colloquial usage is a bad way to get a point across. Being called a SJW isn't equivalent to an actual-factual slur and shouldn't be treated as such. Some people are never going to be on board with the ideas, and demanding that everyone falls in step is... well, facist.

You can lead a horse to water, but if you force it to drink you're just going to drown it and kill the horse. Wasting time and effort screaming into the void of Twitter is a poor use of time. Education is important, but some people just don't care. They won't care no matter what you do.

 

[Squalor]

Oh I understand content advisory warnings. I just meant all the kids yelling "triggered!" for fucking everything. I teach kids and hear it all the time.

I'm so fucking triggered right now.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

“I genuinely cared about these causes—still do,” he wrote, referencing everything from anti-racism to LGBT rights to reproductive health. “I believed I was doing something noble. At the same time,” he added, “a large part of me was not quite in agreement with some of the views and concepts espoused by social-justice groups. Their pro-censorship tendencies, fixation with intersectionality, and constant uproar over seemingly trivial and innocuous matters like ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘microaggressions’ went against my civil-libertarian sensibilities.”

Feels exactly like me there, the entire scenario regarding discussing my beliefs is entirely similar, only I'm a white male which seems to be the devil once you don't fully agree - and as the story suggests anyone of an ethnicity who holds even slightly what these types of SJW's consider typically 'white right wing' views is considered even lower and treated far worse
The SJW oppress these minorities in an entirely different way, without violence they abuse through mental degradation and utterly invalidating everything about their view point.

its an unfortunate trend I've seen in the SJW and Feminist movements, where they are fixed on tiny insignificant issues, seeing 'creating' issues where there are non, twisting things to meet their agenda/narratives and perpetuating very flawed and dishonest 'facts'
These very same people are what can only be described as poor loosers, and when anyone questions there view point they go off the deep end, resorting to tactics of invalidating the 'offender' claiming they have no right to comment for X, Y and Z reasons and of course personal insults, even if they are just made up words to further invalidate and ridicule those they look down upon (those who don't share their world view)

I mean, it does sound like it would get old rather quick but I don't see how it makes trigger warnings (for violence, scars, that sort of thing) less valid.

True triggers shouldn't be a problem, warnings of content so as to prepare people are not something new, however the resent over use of them (particularly in a university/college environment, coupled with safe spaces) dilutes the meaning with their trivial use and also fosters an almost censorship like environment that allows anyone who doesn't like to be challenged to walk around in a bubble.

The more you say something for more and more meanings loosely related to the original use, the more people come to ignore the terms or see it as some sort of petty joke - its a very real risk, already on the internet and in some satirical TV shows you see people jokingly throw out the word 'Triggered' - should legitimate cause for such warnings be tarred with the same brush by the petty over use? no it should not, but will it? almost certainly

Young liberals acting full of self-righteousness and moral superiority?! What a world we live in!

But seriously it has gotten worse. I used to be a pretty serious activist back in high school and college but now if you aren't going in 100% on every issue, all the time, most of these groups want nothing to do with you. Sometimes I think it's more just a desire for these people just to want to do something, rather than critically thinking about what it is they are doing. They see a problem, think they have an answer, and thus anyone who isn't toeing the line is clearly behind the times or arguing from a position of moral inferiority.

Wish I still had that kind of passion It's just hard to maintain as you get older and the line between "activist" and "asshole" becomes more blurry.

Couldn't have put it better myself, When in university myself I got involved on issues I agreed with and it was appreciated, I listened with an open mind to others
Now it seems like you say that its almost no longer about the issues and more to do with wanting to belong to a movement and do something, in an almost militant way sometimes. The fact they dismiss anyone who generally agrees with their views but doesn't go all in is particularly irksome

 

[gutter_trash]

Some social-democratic lefties can behave in a closed minded exclusive club on their views and end acting Conservative in their closed mindedness

 

[MisterR]

You're not wrong but you also have to be able to trust the person is arguing in good faith.

Why? Even if they aren't they could still have valid points. It's better to address the issues raised than just try to find the easy way out and just ignore it because you don't find the person raising the issues worthy of debate.

 

[Sylas]

Feels exactly like me there, the entire scenario regarding discussing my beliefs is entirely similar, only I'm a white male which seems to be the devil once you don't fully agree - and as the story suggests anyone of an ethnicity who holds even slightly what these types of SJW's consider typically 'white right wing' views is considered even lower and treated far worse
The SJW oppress these minorities in an entirely different way, without violence they abuse through mental degradation and utterly invalidating everything about their view point.

its an unfortunate trend I've seen in the SJW and Feminist movements, where they are fixed on tiny insignificant issues, seeing 'creating' issues where there are non, twisting things to meet their agenda/narratives and perpetuating very flawed and dishonest 'facts'
These very same people are what can only be described as poor loosers, and when anyone questions there view point they go off the deep end, resorting to tactics of invalidating the 'offender' claiming they have no right to comment for X, Y and Z reasons and of course personal insults, even if they are just made up words to further invalidate and ridicule those they look down upon (those who don't share their world view)

Stop hanging out with and stop interacting with shitty people, honestly. This is what I was talking about with people not being prepared to interact with larger social groups than they've ever had to before. I'm a feminist and a male, but I completely ignore the screeching assholes that try to paint me as the devil.

They aren't worth my time. Nobody is going to listen to them. So I help with, and interact with, the people that won't label me as something I'm not. They're the people that will correct me if I'm in the wrong, but won't demonize me for making a genuine mistake.

Not everyone on the internet needs to hear and accept your message, and that runs both ways.

 

[deli2000]

Your argument has been "TRIGGERED isn't a real thing just because you said it was".

How am I supposed to respond to that with anything other than "I see it used in daily life non-ironically, so I would say it's real"?

Your argument has essentially been "I'm right your wrong". What is there to argue?

Except it's not my argument. The people you encountered weren't using trigger warnings at all. What you're talking about is people being easily offended.

Trigger warnings have been used in academia for decades. Age ratings on video games have been around for decades. In fact the same is true for all forms of media. The definition and application has not changed. What does your anecdote have to do with any of that. Are age ratings being improperly used now? Once again, not trying to shut you down, genuinely curious.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

These people turned social justice into a derogatory phrase. How the fuck.

Helping the poor, fighting for civil rights, that's social justice. Banning things, and being hypersensitive about micro-aggression has shit all to do with that.

 

[Warm Machine]

I have a few SJW types on my Facebook friends list. Usually I don't engage in the discussions but usually think about what they say. There are salient point often however I'm very afraid of the thought policing they try to go through and also the expectation that people act like robots and not give into any base human emotions. It is easy to hold standards when far away and detached from a moment or experience.

Now I'm old enough to know what someone says online is often hypocritically acted against in real life. As the saying goes, watch what people actually do, not what they say.

 

[Jebusman]

Except it's not my argument. The people you encountered weren't using trigger warnings at all. What you're talking about is people being easily offended.

Trigger warnings have been used in academia for decades. Age ratings on video games have been around for decades. In fact the same is true for all forms of media. The definition and application has not changed. What does your anecdote have to do with any of that. Are age ratings being improperly used now? Once again, not trying to shut you down, genuinely curious.

Except what do you think "Triggered" came from? Why do you think they would've picked that word instead of anything else? It came from the idea of trigger warnings. The idea is that they understand the point of a trigger warning to "warn them" that they might be "Triggered". So they have two options. If they see something with a trigger warning that they feel might emotionally compromise them, they ignore the subject. If the content DOESN'T have a trigger warning, they sit there in weird anticipation of it happening, then jump to yell "TRIGGERED" the moment it does.

TRIGGERED is by itself an extention of the spread of trigger warnings. It's very much within the same realm, and born from people misunderstanding the intended purpose of a trigger warning. It's why I've said I don't disagree with the concept of what a trigger warning is, but I disagree with how it has spread and the resultant culture of people who yell "triggered" every time they see something that upsets them. They yell it as a form of criticism saying "Why didn't you give me a trigger warning for this thing?"

 

[Kinyou]

Except it's not my argument. The people you encountered weren't using trigger warnings at all. What you're talking about is people being easily offended.

Trigger warnings have been used in academia for decades. Age ratings on video games have been around for decades. In fact the same is true for all forms of media. The definition and application has not changed. What does your anecdote have to do with any of that. Are age ratings being improperly used now? Once again, not trying to shut you down, genuinely curious.

Age ratings are not trigger warnings. They aren't there under the assumption that a kid will relive a traumatic experience because it saw violence in a movie. The idea is to shield the child from the content itself and not some trigger.

 

[Sai-kun]

The only problem I have with this is his objection to intersectionality???

Like...huh?

 

[freeofgreed]

Ah yes yet another Atlantic article talking about those oh so crazy college liberals. Knew we were over due.

 

[Camjo-Z]

This shit right here is infuriating

Literally any time I post something that goes against the grain in a thread about black people and get "let me guess, you're not black" as a response, I'm guaranteed to hear some variation of the internalized racism line after I reveal that I actually am biracial. One time a fairly prominent poster seriously tried to argue that I'm subconciously racist against half of my family because I'm not a fan of black names. I don't even bother going into most threads relating to black issues anymore.

 

[deli2000]

Except what do you think "Triggered" came from? Why do you think they would've picked that word instead of anything else? It came from the idea of trigger warnings. The idea is that they understand the point of a trigger warning to "warn them" that they might be "Triggered". So they have two options. If they see something with a trigger warning that they feel might emotionally compromise them, they ignore the subject. If the content DOESN'T have a trigger warning, they sit there in weird anticipation of it happening, then jump to yell "TRIGGERED" the moment it does.

TRIGGERED is by itself an extention of the spread of trigger warnings. It's very much within the same realm, and born from people misunderstanding the intended purpose of a trigger warning.

You said you have a problem with how trigger warnings are used. This is more about how they are interpreted no? I'm not arguing against that at all. But that's not what you said earlier.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

Stop hanging out with and stop interacting with shitty people, honestly. This is what I was talking about with people not being prepared to interact with larger social groups than they've ever had to before. I'm a feminist and a male, but I completely ignore the screeching assholes that try to paint me as the devil.

They aren't worth my time. Nobody is going to listen to them. So I help with, and interact with, the people that won't label me as something I'm not. They're the people that will correct me if I'm in the wrong, but won't demonize me for making a genuine mistake.

Not everyone on the internet needs to hear and accept your message, and that runs both ways.

I don't not anymore, after leaving the educational environment behind me and moving onto a full time work environment on a daily basis I interacted with such a wide range of view points - it was eye opening to my liberal student self, people who I thought to be wholly righteous liberal people, were in their own way facist assholes

You are so right with your last point, I just wish more people understood that principle, that in my mind goes hand in hand with freedom of speech and expression.

on the subject of 'Triggers' if I had one it would have to be the use of 'Strawman' by 99% of people who use it, its kind of an identifier for one of 'those' assholes, as they only ever wheel it out when they want to completely invalidate someones view point and discussion and not consider a single thing about it.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

The only problem I have with this is his objection to intersectionality???

Like...huh?

I've attributed to him being a fan of Sommers, she's voiced against stuff like that before & spread a really weird interpretation of it.

If he likes her it's not far fetched to assume he agrees with her view on it.

 

[Jebusman]

You said you have a problem with how trigger warnings are used. This is more about how they are interpreted no? I'm not arguing against that at all. But that's not what you said earlier.

But used and interpreted are two sides of the same coin. If someone is interpreting that is how trigger warnings are meant to be used, then that is how they will continue to spread and demand the use of them.

These are not mutually exclusive concepts. People use trigger warnings for trivial stuff because people misinterpret what trigger warnings are meant for. One feeds into the other. And thanks to a culture that has decided it does not want to offend or upset anybody (a nobel if misguided goal), it's allowed to thrive that way.

So yes, I have a problem with the way trigger warnings are used, because they have taught people that they need to be mentally shielded from just about everything under the sun, and to cry out in anguish the moment something slips through the cracks.

But I don't have a problem with the conceptual idea of a trigger warning, because PTSD and severe psychological conditions have required their use forever.

 

[DrGonzo615]

This is what i been talking about. Its a young person thing.

SJW is mostly made up of kids and young adults

I remember when I was that age feeling like I was just as capable of reasonable thought and empathy as anyone who might be older. While I still believe maturity is not necessarily a product of age, I was wrong about myself.

Kids can be pretty dumb.

I agree that its comprised of mostly young adults but the scary thing is that this type of thinking and mentality is being propagated on college campuses and it seems that anybody that disagrees with this mob mentality gets calls for their resignation.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Are the terms SJW and hippy used in similarly disparaging ways?

Were hippies in the 60s seen similarly by the masses as "SJWs" are now?

Personally, my image of an old 60's hippy was free love, drug use, and generally being chill, or partying.

This new movement seems uptight as hell.

 

[Cyframe]

I maintain the stance that complaining about a term being adopted for colloquial usage is a bad way to get a point across. Being called a SJW isn't equivalent to an actual-factual slur and shouldn't be treated as such. Some people are never going to be on board with the ideas, and demanding that everyone falls in step is... well, facist.

You can lead a horse to water, but if you force it to drink you're just going to drown it and kill the horse. Wasting time and effort screaming into the void of Twitter is a poor use of time. Education is important, but some people just don't care. They won't care no matter what you do.

I wouldn't call it a slur, but I've seen that term used by white people against PoC, specifically Black people in order to dismiss their claims and stances as erroneous. It's a complete straw and doesn't do anything to progress the conversation.

It's not just on twitter that I see this attitude, it even happens in core environments that are leading change. For example, I was involved in a workshop that talked about employment readiness and interview tactics, but largely, the workshop missed the point of Black women have a very hard time securing positions because of their natural hair. And I lead the conversation to that, and I challenged the speaker to maybe have a more inclusive viewpoint, they agreed with me. But white people just viewed the entire conversation of hair as a non issue, when it is one.

SJW, I don't see any value in the term. And I will judge someone if they use it to consistently denounce and undercut marginalized voices. I don't really consider such an evaluation to be outrageous.

 

[Squalor]

Literally any time I post something that goes against the grain in a thread about black people and get "let me guess, you're not black" as a response, I'm guaranteed to hear some variation of the internalized racism line after I reveal that I actually am biracial. One time a fairly prominent poster seriously tried to argue that I'm subconciously racist against half of my family because I'm not a fan of black names. I don't even bother going into most threads relating to black issues anymore.

Not to speak to the other points, but being against "black" names is weird. They're just words. All names are just words. All names are just made up. It's odd that you'd specifically "be against" "black names." I suppose everyone should just conform and be "Adam."

Personally, my image of an old 60's hippy was free love, drug use, and generally being chill, or partying.

This new movement seems uptight as hell.

The movement is uptight as hell.

Maybe hippies were more uptight than time and history have let on, though.

 

[MisterR]

Are the terms SJW and hippy used in similarly disparaging ways?

Were hippies in the 60s seen similarly by the masses as "SJWs" are now?

Not really. Hippies were seen as drop outs, lazy, laid back. SJW's are cast as pestering thought police assholes.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

All I'm seeing on here is a whole lot of pseudo-empathy and a whole lot of selfishness, IMO.


I get how the person in the article feels, but I work despite my thoughts not always clicking.

I get challenged, I see if I got things wrong. If I feel I didn't, I continue. If I did, I modify.

But this, "I respect the cause, but" is for the birds. Always has been, always will be. It's the difference between those who sat on the sidelines during the Civil Rights Movement, those who stopped after the CRA got enacted, and those who made it their lives' work.

The causes I fight for mean too much for me to go "but".

 

[MisterR]

Not to speak to the other points, but being against "black" names is weird. They're just words. All names are just words. All names are just made up. It's odd that you'd specifically "be against" "black names." I suppose everyone should just conform and be "Adam."

The movement is uptight as hell.

Maybe hippies were more uptight than time and history have let on, though.

How about he be allowed to like whatever names he wants to?

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

How about he be allowed to like whatever names he wants to?

When did freedom of speech mean no more critique?

 

[teruterubozu]

Are the terms SJW and hippy used in similarly disparaging ways?

Were hippies in the 60s seen similarly by the masses as "SJWs" are now?

Hippies wanted to get off the grid. SJWs use the grid for maximum surveillance.

 

[Squalor]

How about he be allowed to like whatever names he wants to?

Re-quote my post and show me where I said he wasn't "allowed" to like whatever names he wants.

You can't? Okay. Thank you for incorrectly speaking for the man or woman I was engaging in a conversation with.

I said it seemed weird. I was hoping he or she would enlighten me to his or her dislike.

Thank you for interrupting with your absurd non-sequitur comment.