Support NeoGAF

[Cybrwzrd]

The faction of the authoritarian left that's anti-liberal in terms of free speech and discourse is pretty creepy and disappointing. Between them and those with the same tactics on the right, the heckler's veto is what reigns supreme these days.

I have to agree. The authoritarian left in the social justice circles would love to have a cultural revolution/great purge type of solution. Just make anyone who doesn't agree disappear. This isn't to say the authoritarian right is innocent, as they too would love their own version of this.

I agree with the fact that we need to work on improving equality, but the energy of these groups are being focused on the wrong solutions. I disagree with the methods most SJ groups go about getting results as they don't work and just push people away.

If we can fix economic inequality we can fix the social stuff, not the other way around. This was linked to in another thread yesterday, and I think it is relevant to this discussion.

http://isj.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-privilege-theory/

 

[Jebusman]

Please someone explain this new kiddie "Triggered" word to me. It just means getting angry, right?

"TRIGGERED" is a short hand for when someone sees something that they feel is emotionally upsetting, want it to go away and yell "TRIGGERED" as in you just triggered their emotional trauma, hoping that it will, in fact, go away.

 

[guek]

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.

 

[teruterubozu]

"TRIGGERED" is a short hand for when someone sees something that they feel is emotionally upsetting, want it to go away and yell "TRIGGERED" as in you just triggered their emotional trauma.

How ridiculous.

 

[Valhelm]

Am I the only one raising an eyebrow at him apparently putting "intersectionality" on the list of bad SJ concepts?

Intersectionality is a good thing when it refers to activists recognizing their own privilege. For instance, feminism was traditionally driven by rich white women. Socialism was traditionally driven by poor white men. Both of these activist groups had their own biases which could stymy their goals of liberation.

However, intersectionality can be dangerous when groups claim to have a one-size-fits-all solution to the world's problems. Many feminists sincerely believe that capitalism is an extension of male dominance, and will disappear as soon as we "smash the patriarchy". Similarly, a large contingent of socialists think racism is completely irrelevant, and that racial hierarchies will crumble as soon as the bourgeoisie can no longer enforce them.

I'm of the belief that different problems have different solutions. Ideally, we on the left would support each other's causes without aggressive competition.

 

[deli2000]

Please someone explain this new kiddie "Triggered" word to me. It just means getting angry, right?

When someone disagrees with something you said. You can say "lol stop being triggered" and shove away all criticism via condescendion and snark. That's what it means.

 

[Inferno313]

I don't disagree with the concept of what a trigger warning is, i.e. "Hey guys/gals/etc., we're about to show you something pretty disturbing, so rather than shock you with it out of the blue, we're going to give you a warning first so you can mentally brace yourself".

That's a trigger warning.

Yelling out TRIGGERED every time someone makes your coffee wrong or you see a squirrel and you had a bad experience with squirrels in your life at one point is taking it a step too far. Yelling TRIGGERED rather than even think about beginning to learn how to deal with the problem is taking it a step too far.

Trigger warning are being used as an excuse for people who need professional help, to not get professional help.

I have yet to be convinced this is a thing that real people actually do. I've only ever seen this done ironically to make fun of "the PC police."

 

[kadotsu]

Am I the only one raising an eyebrow at him apparently putting "intersectionality" on the list of bad SJ concepts?

The only issue I could see with intersectionality could be people using oppression as a argumentative currency rather than something that needs to be eradicated, which leads to them collecting oppressed identities like Pokemon.

 

[SapphiCine]

"TRIGGERED" is a short hand for when someone sees something that they feel is emotionally upsetting, want it to go away and yell "TRIGGERED" as in you just triggered their emotional trauma, hoping that it will, in fact, go away.

It's also used as a really shitty meme.

V Just in time.

 

[shintoki]

I don't think I can take another dreadlock argument.

I'm triggering next time Gaf.

 

[UrbanRats]

I think the problem is that sometimes, people can let politics become a sport, and that leads to this, and worse.
Gotta keep that attitude in check, regardless of your political place in the spectrum.

 

[MisterR]

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.

Yep, when you're that age you feel like you have everything figured out. As you get older, you start to understand that you still had a lot to learn.

 

[Jebusman]

I have yet to be convinced this is a thing that real people actually do. I've only ever seen this done ironically to make fun of "the PC police."

Look, all I can tell you is my own personal experience. And I witness this on almost a weekly basis. With different people. These are friends of a friend, who I end up having to deal with occationally. They all fit exactly the stereotype that 4chan loved to label the "SJW" as.

 

[deli2000]

I have yet to be convinced this is a thing that real people actually do. I've only ever seen this done ironically to make fun of "the PC police."

Well I met one person who did it so I think that's worth dismissing an entire movement.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

As the guy mentioned getting hassled on twitter I decided to take a look.

Interesting reaction to SJ concepts he doesn't believe in:

https://twitter.com/_atariz/status/716771474472718336

Sommers for best feminist:

https://twitter.com/_atariz/status/707417263763296258

Intersectionality is a good thing when it refers to activists recognizing their own privilege. For instance, feminism was traditionally driven by rich white women. Socialism was traditionally driven by poor white men. Both of these activist groups had their own biases which could stymy their goals of liberation.

However, intersectionality can be dangerous when groups claim to have a one-size-fits-all solution to the world's problems. Many feminists sincerely believe that capitalism is an extension of male dominance, and will disappear as soon as we "smash the patriarchy". Similarly, a large contingent of socialists think racism is completely irrelevant, and that racial hierarchies will crumble as soon as the bourgeoisie can no longer enforce them.

I'm of the belief that different problems have different solutions. Ideally, we on the left would support each other's causes without aggressive competition.

Would that fall under intersectionality though?

There's a differecne between understanding & supporting other civil rights groups & pretending your own issue is a magical-cure all.

If anything saying any one issue is a magical cure all (e.g. economics) goes entirely against the concept of intersectionality, no?

 

[Johndoey]

Nothing wrong with basic content advisory being available, which ideally is what a trigger warning should be.

 

[Jebusman]

Well I met one person who did it so I think that's worth dismissing an entire movement.

Why mischaracterize my argument? It's not like we're on a forum so you can't go literally read the text I wrote. It's right there!.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea of trigger warnings, but I think their use is going in the wrong direction.

Are we just going to prove the point of the article that it's "All or nothing" when it comes to support the social justice side of things? Either tow the party line or you're part of the problem?

 

[HazySaiyan]

I've got no problem with trigger warnings in principle as I'm sure they do help people who've been through a traumatic experience. Hell UK television has had something akin to trigger warnings as long as I can remember, but it can go way too far.

Found this Tumblr post with common triggers, and whilst some of them are perfectly reasonable to have a trigger warning for (like rape, child abuse or suicide), some of them are just ridiculous. I mean c'mon, swearing? Slimy things? Really?

 

[SapphiCine]

As the guy mentioned getting hassled on twitter I decided to take a look.

Interesting reaction to SJ concepts he doesn't believe in:

https://twitter.com/_atariz/status/716771474472718336

Sommers for best feminist:

https://twitter.com/_atariz/status/707417263763296258

This is my shocked face.

 

[NexusCell]

As the guy mentioned getting hassled on twitter I decided to take a look.

Interesting reaction to SJ concepts he doesn't believe in:

https://twitter.com/_atariz/status/716771474472718336

Sommers for best feminist:

https://twitter.com/_atariz/status/707417263763296258

I find it a bit disappointing that the first thing people try to do when critiqued is to try to invalidate the speaker themselves rather then actually arguing and discussing with what they're saying. I mean, I disagree with what he says in these tweets, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate his experiences.

 

[ldcommando]

I've got no problem with trigger warnings in principle as I'm sure they do help people who've been through a traumatic experience. Hell UK television has had something akin to trigger warnings as long as I can remember, but it can go way too far.

Found this Tumblr post with common triggers, and whilst some of them are perfectly reasonable to have a trigger warning for (like rape, child abuse or suicide), some of them are just ridiculous. I mean c'mon, swearing? Slimy things? Really?

needles is a good one, I fucking hate needles

 

[PopeReal]

This thread is going to go off the rails, I can feel it.

I'm sure there are some that cry wolf or maybe look too hard for something that is not there.

But honestly in my opinion a lot of people just hate getting called out on their racist or shitty behavior.

 

[stump sock]

Nothing wrong with basic content advisory being available, which ideally is what a trigger warning should be.

the problem being that usually it goes beyond sensibility into just lunacy. I don't particularly like watching people die or get murdered so it's nice when someone warns of graphic footage when posting a news story.

but then you get stuff like this oldie

 

[SapphiCine]

I find it a bit disappointing that the first thing people try to do when critiqued is to try to invalidate the speaker themselves rather then actually arguing and discussing with what they're saying. I mean, I disagree with what he says in these tweets, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate his experiences.

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

 

[ldcommando]

the problem being that usually it goes beyond sensibility into just lunacy. I don't particularly like watching people die or get murdered so it's nice when someone warns of graphic footage when posting a news story.

but then you get stuff like this oldie

Why you are posting gore pictures, bro?

 

[deli2000]

Why mischaracterize my argument? It's not like we're on a forum so you can't go literally read the text I wrote. It's right there!.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea of trigger warnings, but I think their use is going in the wrong direction.

Are we just going to prove the point of the article that it's "All or nothing" when it comes to support the social justice side of things? Either tow the party line or you're part of the problem?

This is an entire thread about people saying they don't like the social justice movement anymore because they think it's too toxic. Are you seriously trying to peg me as a shrieking sjw because I took issue with a single use of anecdotal evidence to further ones bias? I'm just saying what I read. I take no issue with you personally or your beliefs or whatever. Calm down and get of your high horse.

The irony with someone agreeing with the article in the OP and then disregarding criticism as mindless outrage is not lost on me. I guess hypocrisy is rife in more parts of the left than we thought.

 

[pa22word]

I find it a bit disappointing that the first thing people try to do when critiqued is to try to invalidate the speaker themselves rather then actually arguing and discussing with what they're saying. I mean, I disagree with what he says in these tweets, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate his experiences.

ad hominem is easy, especially on a site like this where "DetectiveGAF" is always on high alert ready to fire up their search engines in pursuit of perceived moral hazard

breaking down an argument and making a few cognizant points isn't

 

[Silexx]

I find it a bit disappointing that the first thing people try to do when critiqued is to try to invalidate the speaker themselves rather then actually arguing and discussing with what they're saying. I mean, I disagree with what he says in these tweets, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate his experiences.

Not that I disagree entirely with what your saying, but I think people look these things up when they suspect someone may not be arguing in good faith.

Edit: Beaten by SapphiCine

 

[Valhelm]

the problem being that usually it goes beyond sensibility into just lunacy. I don't particularly like watching people die or get murdered so it's nice when someone warns of graphic footage when posting a news story.

but then you get stuff like this oldie

That kind of wackiness is really isolated, though. The Tumblr SJ left is a lot less extreme than you might expect, because only the ridiculous posts get promoted like this.

 

[Pizoxuat]

I find it a bit disappointing that the first thing people try to do when critiqued is to try to invalidate the speaker themselves rather then actually arguing and discussing with what they're saying. I mean, I disagree with what he says in these tweets, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate his experiences.

On the other hand, if he thinks that Sommers is an ideal feminist, that puts a lot of context behind his complaint about intersectionality.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I find it a bit disappointing that the first thing people try to do when critiqued is to try to invalidate the speaker themselves rather then actually arguing and discussing with what they're saying. I mean, I disagree with what he says in these tweets, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate his experiences.

A chunk of his article is dedicates to how unfairly people treat him on twitter, it made me curious.

 

[paragonpro]

The ideas in the social justice movement are sound, im all for equality, but something got lost or corrupted along the way within some of these circles, calling for censorship and using triggers or micro agressions as scape goats for your innapropriate behavior is absolutley uncalled for.

 

[ldcommando]

A chunk of his article is dedicates to how unfairly people treat him on twitter, it made me curious.

just admit you want to discredit his views, it´s okay

 

[Jebusman]

This is an entire thread about people saying they don't like the social justice movement anymore because they think it's too toxic. Are you seriously trying to peg me as a shrieking sjw because I took issue with a single use of anecdotal evidence to further ones bias? I'm just saying what I read. I take no issue with you personally or your beliefs or whatever. Calm down and get of your high horse.

The irony with someone agreeing with the article in the OP and then disregarding criticism as mindless outrage is not lost on me. I guess hypocrisy is rife in more parts of the left than we thought.

Read what you wrote. You are being incredibly confrontational for someone who came in, tried to immediately dismiss what I was UP FRONT in claiming was anecdotal evidence, and I even wrote from the get go that I don't disagree with trigger warnings in the first place!

What was even the fucking point! So you could label yourself as a "shrieking SJW" in an attempt to slander my character?

I don't think Trigger Warnings are necessary a bad idea. I think the way they are used is bad. I get to witness this on a first hand basis. That's it. If that's being on a high horse then so be it.

 

[spekkeh]

For some reason consequentialists have monopolitized the ethical discourse. For what merit it may have, in its strictest form it only means a race to the bottom over who is offended most, and becomes overbearing because anything and everything is weighed against the greater good, something we lack the faculties to actually determine (so once again a race to determine who is the loudest whiner).

If this person is an older liberal (s)he most likely has an upbringing couched more in value ethics. We need to go back to value ethics. People are equal is the start point, not the end point.

 

[deli2000]

just admit you want to discredit his views, it´s okay

Criticism of ones views is not allowed because it's something I agree with. Looking up two tweets is a personal attack beacuse the guy says stuff I agree with.

How about that regressive left though. Getting offended because their views are criticised and taking everything as a personal attack.

 

[nynt9]

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

Not that I disagree entirely with what your saying, but I think people look these things up when they suspect someone may not be arguing in good faith.

Edit: Beaten by SapphiCine

And what within the article constitutes as him arguing in bad faith? That one is arguing in bad faith should be determined from the argument and not the past of the person. Sadly I see this type of approach applied by people quite often when someone criticizes activities of liberals. He disagrees with us? He must have an ulterior motive! Let's dig through his past until we can find something to validate our assumption that he's being disingenuous!

Even if he is arguing in bad faith, a valid argument is valid whether or not it's being presented by someone being disingenuous. If someone is mistaken yet still making a good point then it's worth considering the point.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

A chunk of his article is dedicates to how unfairly people treat him on twitter, it made me curious.

Did he say something wrong on twitter? Or just something that you disagree with?

Its like a perverted version of an ad homenem attack. He said nothing wrong, and you are trying to paint him as saying something despicable.

 

[n00bsauce87]

I agree and disagree on some points.

I tend to agree with using the Q/A period to get your grievances out with whoever is speaking. You can fully get across what you want them to hear. But sometimes you have to cause civil disobedience to get people to listen to what you have to say. If things were taken a more calmer route from the inclination of BLM, I don't think people would care (for good or bad).

I disagreed on

“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.”

“On Twitter,” he wrote, “I discussed how trigger warnings have almost been rendered useless now that they’re used to alert individuals when talking about normal everyday things, like food, cars and animals. And that their use could potentially have adverse effects on academic freedom. I was accused of being outrageously insensitive and apparently made three activist cohorts have traumatic breakdowns.”

One, PTSD affects more people than just solders coming home and you can't assume that people are just mentally all there about everyday life like you. That's just a privileged stance.

Two, the idea of being allies of marginalized people doesn't rest on purely your personal positions. How selfish man. If you don't understand, ask questions on why John/Jane Doe feels the way they do. It's not that people are being triggered too easily (as the person in OP claims) it's that people like in OP shows a lack of empathy.

That's the biggest problem from what I can see. Pseudo-Empathy.

They will donate for different causes, walk 5 miles for whatever charity, get arrested, yell with signs down the street. I am a civil rights, left wing socialist liberal they say. Which I don't doubt. But the second another marginalized person uses methods they don't agree with or hold a position they don't agree with, that marginalized person becomes the problem. Why can't you be more calm? Why do you need to disrupt? Wait your turn. Your rationalization makes no sense. You are getting triggered over a hot dog? This random car?

They only care about you if you care about the issues they feel as though is important and in a manner that they feel is respectable.

 

[theignoramus]

Isn't calling somebody an uncle Tom just as racist as the racism the are allegedly fighting against? It’s pretty much the race traitor equivalent.

And yeah, of course they censor other opinions, a discussion is hard and it’s not that easy to pat yourself all the time on your back, about how righteous you are, if somebody else does not think you deserve it.

No.The insult is a nasty word, but no more than a mean spirited sentiment. A coon like Jesse Lee Peterson works to promote and defend institutional racism and White supremacist values, something far more harmful and insidious than a singular racial slur being yelled out.

 

[paragonpro]

Please someone explain this new kiddie "Triggered" word to me. It just means getting angry, right?

It means you might say something I dissagree with and rather than giving you a proper rebutle im just going to say im triggered and walk away, now you look like an ass hole for dissagreeing with me. At least thats what people who've said it to me make it seem like, the actual meaning of the term is literally just meant to express that an image, story, word, or sound may bring up memories of an uncomfortable experience

 

[deli2000]

Read what you wrote. You are being incredibly confrontational for someone who came in, tried to immediately dismiss what I was UP FRONT in claiming was anecdotal evidence, and I even wrote from the get go that I don't disagree with trigger warnings in the first place!

What was even the fucking point! So you could label yourself as a "shrieking SJW" in an attempt to slander my character?

I don't think Trigger Warnings are necessary a bad idea. I think the way they are used is bad. I get to witness this on a first hand basis. That's it. If that's being on a high horse then so be it.

How am I slandering your character if the only things I'm criticising are the things that you posted that I am reading. Personal attacks are the last thing I want to do and if I have slandered your character I apologise.

What I take issue with, once again, is the use of anecdotal evidence to misrepresent the use of trigger warnings. That argument has no basis. Once again, I am not trying to attack you personally.

 

[Jakten]

"TRIGGERED" is a short hand for when someone sees something that they feel is emotionally upsetting, want it to go away and yell "TRIGGERED" as in you just triggered their emotional trauma, hoping that it will, in fact, go away.

That's not right at all. Triggered is an attempt at a joke that people say to make fun of the real thing which is a trigger or trigger word.

A trigger is something that sets off a panic attack from emotional or physical trauma and is used so those people can avoid/prepare for such a thing to aid their therapy. For instance warning people that you are going to be talking about rape so that people who have actually been raped know to prepare for it.

 

[Trokil]

Isn't the main problem, that people can not understand, that in a discussion having a different opinion is not an insult, but just part of having a discussion.

If you have to specially tag an opinion, because somebody else may have an opposite view then we have a huge problem. It is part of our society, that people have different views and to a lot of topics there is not right or wrong.

The problem starts if you think, there is only one valid opinion and if you try to either censor or deny other points of view. You can have a lot of opinions, but it does not mean you have to start the holy inquisition, if somebody does not share yours. I thought we were at least this advanced and not feeling insulted by that.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

just admit you want to discredit his views, it´s okay

You're basically calling me disingenuous or possibly even a liar when you make posts like this, you realise that right?

If you feel that way at least spell it out instead of saying cheeky shit like this.


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

I can undestand why someone who supports someone controversial like Sommers might be against intersectionality and feel alienated by chunks of the social justice community, she's quite fringe.

 

[Jebusman]

How am I slandering your character if the only things I'm criticising are the things that you posted that I am reading. Personal attacks are the last thing I want to do and if I have slandered your character I apologise.

What I take issue with, once again, is the use of anecdotal evidence to misrepresent the use of trigger warnings. That argument has no basis. Once again, I am not trying to attack you personally.

Your first two posts were

When someone disagrees with something you said. You can say "lol stop being triggered" and shove away all criticism via condescendion and snark. That's what it means.

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.

Well I met one person who did it so I think that's worth dismissing an entire movement.

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)

That's not right at all. Triggered is something that people say to make fun of the real thing which is a trigger or trigger word.

A trigger is something that sets off a panic attack from emotional or physical trauma and is used so those people can avoid/prepare for such a thing to aid their therapy. For instance warning people that you are going to be talking about rape so that people who have actually been raped know to prepare for it.

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.

 

[Sylas]

How am I slandering your character if the only things I'm criticising are the things that you posted that I am reading. Personal attacks are the last thing I want to do and if I have slandered your character I apologise.

What I take issue with, once again, is the use of anecdotal evidence to misrepresent the use of trigger warnings. That argument has no basis. Once again, I am not trying to attack you personally.

Anecdotal evidence is absolutely the best way to quantitatively measure the effect they have on your life. It's important to make the world a better place for you and your own and everyone else, but you can only do so using the evidence you're given. Hell, people being triggered (in a PTSD sense, and not a general being upset sense) is an anecdotal experience and you can't do right by those people unless they share with you their particular experience of what triggers them. Not all survivors need be good victims, and different things can set different people off. Trying to lay a blanket over those survivors is cruelty at it's core, and censorship without government intervention. You're removing autonomy from people that need autonomy the most.

Which is the real core of the issue. Social media by and large doesn't allow for actual intellectual discourse and people genuinely aren't prepared for localisation of social issues, much less actually engaging in intellectual discourse. Educating is vital, but the tone of superiority that people take on when using Twitter in particular (which makes sense given it's character limit and the effect of being "loud" has) is genuinely offputting. There's a culture forming around being a "good ally" and using your voice to boost the voices of the marginalized--which is good when it's done for the right reasons, but a massive amount of people don't do it for those reasons. Do you think all the posts making fun of dudes for only caring about feminist issues when they're hoping to earn brownie points are invalid?

You can't phrase things with nuance on most social media platforms, and unless your message is: "Don't be a jackass," there's always going to be nuance. Thankfully we're seeing people leave Twitter in a slow trickle.

Are there base issues? Yes. LBGTQ rights and pulling away from openly racist policy are among those. But things like triggers are such a touch-and-go issue that anecdotal evidence is the only thing a person can, and should, care about.

As far as people yelling "triggered" is concerned, you always need to take into account the colloquial usage of a word. Bitching and moaning that you don't like the way a word is used is, and always has been, pointless white noise.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Did he say something wrong on twitter? Or just something that you disagree with?

Its like a perverted version of an ad homenem attack. He said nothing wrong, and you are trying to paint him as saying something despicable.

I was going to answer your question, but then I realised you've already decided for me in your second line. So nevermind.

 

[Goro Majima]

The ideas in the social justice movement are sound, im all for equality, but something got lost or corrupted along the way within some of these circles, calling for censorship and using triggers or micro agressions as scape goats for your innapropriate behavior is absolutley uncalled for.

Yeah I feel like a lot of it is people who need therapy instead of activism if they're triggered by mundane things. I don't feel like society should have to censor everyday things because of an individual's discomfort. Rather, the individual should seek out professional help to overcome that discomfort. After all, I feel that the ultimate goal of a mental health professional is to help an individual function normally across most of society. If anything, the activism should be for these people being able to seek out mental therapy without being stigmatized (as well as having affordable access to adequate mental health facilities).

Otherwise it feels like I'm seeing is a hijacking of young collegiate activism by individuals seeking to normalize their own neuroses by equating them with sexism, racism, etc.

 

[siddx]

Old people becoming conservative isn't anything new.

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.