The Coddling of the American Mind

[Dragon Angel]

I guess you missed it (but how since it was in the same post is a mystery) so I'll quote myself;

What this all boils down to is a difference of assumption on the term 'trigger warning'. Group 1 is assuming; hey people may have some trauma in their history which some subjects may make them uncomfortable, just issuing a general warning that this might happen before going into these subjects is just politeness, and why are you against politeness?

Group 2 is assuming; you want to empower crazies like mattress girl, or the girl who thought the word 'violate' would be a 'trigger' and didn't want it used during law school, or the black student who said addressing a white lecturer as 'Master' was 'triggering' him due to slavery, or the Yale students flipping the fuck out because a lecturer at Yale wouldn't pre-emptively ban Halloween costumes or the Missou nut jobs who made being run over by the Dean (we can go on here).

You realise that South Park are lampooning (rightfully so) the people I mentioned in my second paragraph right? You get that, right? You realise that these thought fascists actually exist and demand that society re-arrange its self to conform to them by using the same cover of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' that people who might actually have a valid reason to ask for these things?

You might want to read my post, especially the very first paragraph, where I acknowledge there are people who take these too far. Also you might want to read Alyrium's acknowledgement of that, too, earlier. Since some people don't seem to be reading this entire thread before commenting anyway. But hey throwing babies out with bathtubs seems to be a common theme among the people arguing your position.

I am also speaking of South Park as a whole, not that one clip which, as far as I can see, is "lampooning" a complete strawman of what safe spaces are. That's not much of a lampoon, sorry sorry. Also for fucks sake, learn who "Mattress Girl" was before you spout bullshit on her, because she has nothing to do with this conversation. That was a demonstration against rape, not related to trigger warnings, microaggressions, and whatever else is being discussed here. I don't know about the other incidents so until someone better in the know about them can comment, I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Try.

Because "thought fascists" , now you're being meaninglessly hyperbolic. I guess it's "thought fascism" to want basic empathy from a learning institution you're paying money to get higher knowledge from. Your tone suggests that having trigger warnings at all will lead to an Orwellian world because let me quote you from that same post:

But hey, guess what, no one died, and she's now a mum. So really they'll get over it. And for that reason, say no to trigger warnings and safe spaces.

<snip strawman South Park video>

Ostensibly, you feel it appropriate to completely disregard Group 1. You also feel it appropriate to disregard mental health care in the paragraph before it because hey people will get over it on their own am I right?

So you have these two non-divergent positions. Personally I really don't believe half of the shit these students are flipping out about. I really don't. However at the same time I recall during sex education in Year 10 (so about 16 years old) we were shown a video of a woman giving birth. One of the girls fainted, we had to take her outside so she could recover and she couldn't watch the video beyond the point of the crowning. So I'm not going to pretend that legitimately it would never actually happen.

"Personally, I really don't believe half the shit these students are flipping out about" hmm, someone, who hasn't been in these students' shoes, and has not experienced what they've experienced, and has not lived the full extent of their traumas, does not think what they feel is real. hmm someone who doesn't deal with what they deal with or have dealt with on a regular basis, thinks they can just casually handwave it away. ye syes I didn't know traumas or disabilities could be just cured like that I wish I knew when I was going through all this for the last five years!!!

What part of your statements does not scream "Internet Tough Guy" or "Internet Psychologist" to you? Or, well, just being a complete dickhole?

Let me tell you one simple fact: Without proper care, I would've died. By my own hands. What you're suggesting is that universities don't even make a modicum of a step toward trying to help out because it isn't their responsibility or I shouldn't expect an institution I'm trying to learn from to make any acknowledgement at all to my trauma because fuck you. I'm pretty sure this is the same logic shitheads that are against handicapped accessways use, and before you try to say "well that isn't related durr" how is being forcibly confronted by something that will remind you of an extremely traumatic event in any way not disabling? Oh, right, you can casually handwave away their experiences because suddenly you're an expert like everyone else on the Internet about how people should feel about their own depressions, their own anxieties, their own traumas.

Not everyone is me the way I am now, where I can confront related subjects to what I've experienced and casually dismiss them as background noise. I don't expect people to be that way either, especially not in an instant or whatever internet tough goalpost you'd like to set for them. This takes time to develop, and while these conditions are under effect they will prove to be a great hindrance to learning. Which is kind of not what you want to happen in an institution you pay for, to learn.

No, what happened to you is horrific. What's unfortunate is that you get triggered by mundane things that no one else would.

Cut down the smug and learn your place here. "Mundane things" to you are most likely not "mundane things" to Flagg, nor "mundane things" to me, nor "mundane things" to anyone who experiences even anything remotely close to PTSD. I mentioned "this is the literal definition of privilege" in my post because I like to relate to myself being a. trans b. having chronic pain c. a woman and d. schizophrenic. Society's structural imbalances against all four of those categories gives me the "luxury" of dealing with shit that people not in any of them do not need to deal with. You don't get to tell me how I should deal with them if you don't fit into those categories. Even if you do fit into any of them, you also don't get to tell me how I should deal with them because your way is somehow on your personal arbitrary scale "better".

The same goes with "mundane things".

But no, thought fascism, like anything else Those Evil SJWs want.

[Flagg]

It's really amusing when someone unironically presents South Park. It's been a while since I've seen it, but nearly every description of it I hear really comes across as "it's not cool to have strong feelings about anything, it's really cool to just believe everything is a golden mean".

I guess you missed it (but how since it was in the same post is a mystery) so I'll quote myself;

What this all boils down to is a difference of assumption on the term 'trigger warning'. Group 1 is assuming; hey people may have some trauma in their history which some subjects may make them uncomfortable, just issuing a general warning that this might happen before going into these subjects is just politeness, and why are you against politeness?

Group 2 is assuming; you want to empower crazies like mattress girl, or the girl who thought the word 'violate' would be a 'trigger' and didn't want it used during law school, or the black student who said addressing a white lecturer as 'Master' was 'triggering' him due to slavery, or the Yale students flipping the fuck out because a lecturer at Yale wouldn't pre-emptively ban Halloween costumes or the Missou nut jobs who made being run over by the Dean (we can go on here).

You realise that South Park are lampooning (rightfully so) the people I mentioned in my second paragraph right? You get that, right? You realise that these thought fascists actually exist and demand that society re-arrange its self to conform to them by using the same cover of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' that people who might actually have a valid reason to ask for these things?

The problem with South Park is that they are just as much thought fascists, but in demanding that everyone tolerate their absurd worldview, and if you don't then they don't just "lampoon" you, they portray you in the most grotesque and disgusting manner possible using their forum, when those they attack often don't have the ability to respond in a way that adequately defends themselves with near the same reach.

Look at what they did after Isaac Hayes had a stroke and the Scientology fuckers started putting out statements "on his behalf". This is a man they worked with for over a decade, it was public knowledge that he'd had a stroke (and anyone with a working pair of brain cells knew the Scientologists were gunning for Parker and Stone), so when "he" complained about their depiction of Scientology (which I thought was funny, until they insisted that it was somehow dumber than any other religion, which it's not, and never did what they'd do any time they would go after another religion, where there would be some golden mean horseshit at the end of the episode ultimately acquitting it, or at least the followers of it) they portrayed his beloved character as a brainwashed pedophile, using clips of audio to make him say the vilest of things, and then killed him in the most brutal and disgusting way possible, ending with them saying at the end "well we don't hate him, we hate the people who've cooped him!" Yet, oddly I don't recall seeing any of them being ripped apart by wild animals only to defecate themselves when finally dead.

They don't believe in Global Climate Change, so they show Al Gore as some lunatic charlatan willing to put the lives of children at risk in order to prove the existence of a ridiculous creature. But at least he wasn't a brain damaged close former friend of theirs.

[Ralin]

Look at what they did after Isaac Hayes had a stroke and the Scientology fuckers started putting out statements "on his behalf". This is a man they worked with for over a decade, it was public knowledge that he'd had a stroke (and anyone with a working pair of brain cells knew the Scientologists were gunning for Parker and Stone), so when "he" complained about their depiction of Scientology (which I thought was funny, until they insisted that it was somehow dumber than any other religion, which it's not, and never did what they'd do any time they would go after another religion, where there would be some golden mean horseshit at the end of the episode ultimately acquitting it, or at least the followers of it) they portrayed his beloved character as a brainwashed pedophile, using clips of audio to make him say the vilest of things, and then killed him in the most brutal and disgusting way possible, ending with them saying at the end "well we don't hate him, we hate the people who've cooped him!" Yet, oddly I don't recall seeing any of them being ripped apart by wild animals only to defecate themselves when finally dead.

As I recall it was hazy exactly what was going on with Hayes at the time, but he definitely did personally make some statements on the matter. I tend to agree with him that Scientology was singled out in a way other religions aren't, but 1) that only goes so far and 2) they knew him personally and worked with him for years and were probably feeling genuinely hurt over the whole thing.

Plus it's South Park and South Park does crazy disgusting things for humor. Yeah they don't normally go as far as they did with Darth Balls, but meh. See above about personal feelings being involved. I'd be willing to bet they felt obligated to give him the most ridiculously over the top send off possible.

[Zwinmar]

From what I saw in college most kids college age are very inexperienced and as a result many are utterly idiotic and everything they say should be analyzed carefully. That is not to say they do not have good ideas but certainly not all of them.

Of course, it is hilarious to call someone on being a racist jackass when they do not realize they are and then watch them try to backpedal.

[Crown]

You might want to read my post, especially the very first paragraph, where I acknowledge there are people who take these too far. Also you might want to read Alyrium's acknowledgement of that, too, earlier. Since some people don't seem to be reading this entire thread before commenting anyway. But hey throwing babies out with bathtubs seems to be a common theme among the people arguing your position.

Eh? I specifically responded to the only thing I disagreed with. You get that right? Or do you need me to positively reinforce your sensitive ego before I point out criticism?

I am also speaking of South Park as a whole, not that one clip which, as far as I can see, is "lampooning" a complete strawman of what safe spaces are. That's not much of a lampoon, sorry sorry.

By definition to lampoon something is to make a caricature out of it, you get that right?

Also for fucks sake, learn who "Mattress Girl" was before you spout bullshit on her, because she has nothing to do with this conversation. That was a demonstration against rape, not related to trigger warnings, microaggressions, and whatever else is being discussed here. I don't know about the other incidents so until someone better in the know about them can comment, I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you honestly believe that she was demonstrating against rape, rather than trying to shame someone found not guilty of it, I've got some magic beans to sell you.

Because "thought fascists" , now you're being meaninglessly hyperbolic. I guess it's "thought fascism" to want basic empathy from a learning institution you're paying money to get higher knowledge from. Your tone suggests that having trigger warnings at all will lead to an Orwellian world because let me quote you from that same post:

So first you admit that these extreme people who wish to perverse the 'safe space/trigger warning movement' exist and then just brush off any criticism of why we shouldn't empower them? Interesting.

But hey, guess what, no one died, and she's now a mum. So really they'll get over it. And for that reason, say no to trigger warnings and safe spaces.

<snip strawman South Park video>

Ostensibly, you feel it appropriate to completely disregard Group 1. You also feel it appropriate to disregard mental health care in the paragraph before it because hey people will get over it on their own am I right?

Nope. You can scroll up to my response to Flagg where I have no problem if one proactively enquires about subject matter so that they can make an informed decision if it is 'safe' for them.

"Personally, I really don't believe half the shit these students are flipping out about" hmm, someone, who hasn't been in these students' shoes, and has not experienced what they've experienced, and has not lived the full extent of their traumas, does not think what they feel is real. hmm someone who doesn't deal with what they deal with or have dealt with on a regular basis, thinks they can just casually handwave it away. ye syes I didn't know traumas or disabilities could be just cured like that I wish I knew when I was going through all this for the last five years!!!

What part of your statements does not scream "Internet Tough Guy" or "Internet Psychologist" to you? Or, well, just being a complete dickhole?

Usually, when one crafts an argument, we like to employ this thing called 'structure'. For instance, I specifically said I don't believe half the shit that 'these students' are flipping out about. The subject matter of 'these students' would be mattress girl, don't use the word violate girl, ban Halloween costume girl, the dean ran me over guy. And that is my prerogative.

But at the same time when I specifically bring up an example I've witness with my own eyes of someone flipping out, I'm demonstrating to the reader that while my default position is 'skepticism' I can't discount that there are genuine instances of something actually 'triggering' someone to the point of fainting.

So, I have to ask; do you understand English? Because having to actually walk you through this while holding your hand is not something I plan on ever doing again. I don't have the time for it, and I'm even less possessed by the inclination.

Let me tell you one simple fact: Without proper care, I would've died. By my own hands. What you're suggesting is that universities don't even make a modicum of a step toward trying to help out because it isn't their responsibility or I shouldn't expect an institution I'm trying to learn from to make any acknowledgement at all to my trauma because fuck you.

Err no. Again, read my response to Flagg; support should be given I've never argued against that. But you can't expect the entire curriculum to be tailored around someone being 'triggered' by the word 'violate'. It's idiotic. And more to the point, you can't expect anyone to know what could potentially trigger someone in a class of 40, 50, 60 odd people. Get a grip.

I'm pretty sure this is the same logic shitheads that are against handicapped accessways use, and before you try to say "well that isn't related durr" how is being forcibly confronted by something that will remind you of an extremely traumatic event in any way not disabling?

This is a joke right?

Oh, right, you can casually handwave away their experiences because suddenly you're an expert like everyone else on the Internet about how people should feel about their own depressions, their own anxieties, their own traumas.

Not everyone is me the way I am now, where I can confront related subjects to what I've experienced and casually dismiss them as background noise. I don't expect people to be that way either, especially not in an instant or whatever internet tough goalpost you'd like to set for them. This takes time to develop, and while these conditions are under effect they will prove to be a great hindrance to learning. Which is kind of not what you want to happen in an institution you pay for, to learn.

What the fuck are you rambling about?

No, what happened to you is horrific. What's unfortunate is that you get triggered by mundane things that no one else would.

Cut down the smug and learn your place here. "Mundane things" to you are most likely not "mundane things" to Flagg, nor "mundane things" to me, nor "mundane things" to anyone who experiences even anything remotely close to PTSD. I mentioned "this is the literal definition of privilege" in my post because I like to relate to myself being a. trans b. having chronic pain c. a woman and d. schizophrenic. Society's structural imbalances against all four of those categories gives me the "luxury" of dealing with shit that people not in any of them do not need to deal with. You don't get to tell me how I should deal with them if you don't fit into those categories. Even if you do fit into any of them, you also don't get to tell me how I should deal with them because your way is somehow on your personal arbitrary scale "better".

The same goes with "mundane things".

But no, thought fascism, like anything else Those Evil SJWs want.

As above and since when do I have to "check my privilege" asshole?

[Simon_Jester]

I guess you missed it (but how since it was in the same post is a mystery) so I'll quote myself;

...Group 2 is assuming; you want to empower crazies like mattress girl...

You realise that South Park are lampooning (rightfully so) the people I mentioned in my second paragraph right? You get that, right? You realise that these thought fascists actually exist and demand that society re-arrange its self to conform to them by using the same cover of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' that people who might actually have a valid reason to ask for these things?

... Also for fucks sake, learn who "Mattress Girl" was before you spout bullshit on her, because she has nothing to do with this conversation. That was a demonstration against rape, not related to trigger warnings, microaggressions, and whatever else is being discussed here. I don't know about the other incidents so until someone better in the know about them can comment, I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Try.

Amusingly, in that case, the male student accused of rape, the one who was the target of the mattress performance (the one that Mattress Girl wanted to leave the university) himself sued the university because he felt like he was being 'abused' and 'slandered' by the fact that this girl kept walking around campus carrying a mattress and calling him a rapist.

That sounds exactly like the very profile of someone who you'd expect the "anti-outrage" crowd to say is 'oversensitive' and needs to 'toughen up' and 'walk it off.'

She wasn't suing anyone over anything, she was carrying heavy objects and saying nasty things about somebody (which may have been true, or not, I don't know and it hardly even matters for our discussion).

By contrast, HE was suing the university for harassment because someone else threatened to carry heavy things around and say mean things about him and demand that he be expelled. Not because the university actually said it would expel him, certainly not because it DID expel him. Because someone was carrying mattresses around campus.

Maybe Crown should be going after that guy, not Mattress Girl?

This reminds me of the observation made on the first page that "anti-outrage" people usually aren't actually in favor of no one getting "outraged." They're just in favor of no one getting outraged at them.

It's only a problem worth remembering and caring about when a woman is publicly lugging mattresses around as a way of protesting the continued presence of a man she claims abused and raped her, and when insults directed against this man are scrawled on bathroom walls.

It's not a problem worth remembering, to them, if a woman was abused and raped, or if insults against her are scrawled on bathroom walls.

---

Fact of the matter is that once you grow past the age of 12 being called a girl is just not something that insults you.

Fair warning, this attitude will probably get you broken teeth.

Awww... Why did you have to go and warn him?

---

Do you have problems with epilepsy warnings on screen before video games or movie and television ratings that list why a movie or episode is rated that way? Because I don't see a difference between that and "trigger warnings" for certain subjects in a classroom or lecture setting.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

But then, you seem like the usual fuckheaded dipshit who thinks they shouldn't be told to use any constraint when it comes to your behavior and anyone who suffers ill effects should "get over it" as long as you act within the rules. So yeah, you're in fine company with Climate Change Deniers, bigots, and someone who doesn't care if thier actions cause someone to flop around on the floor like a dying fish in full seizure while choking on their own saliva.

You go Don Quixote, show those dragons your valour!

Congratulations, you are the very definition of an empathy-less cunt.

Is there an award? A Medal perhaps?

Um... you do understand what he way saying, right?

The point was, South Park isn't exactly a paragon of good philosophy or logic, and as others have pointed out, quoting South Park is not an argument. South Park is a parody show that routinely advocates horrible, disgusting conclusions that people with any ethics would reject.

The point being that when you are literally dismissing the idea of warning people about things that may disturb them, that this is an extremely mean-spirited thing to do. There is no penalty for issuing such warnings. There is no cost for doing so, which is why for example Alyrium does so routinely- because he cares what happens to other human beings.

A South Park song isn't an excuse to ignore this argument. Flagg blowing up at you about this doesn't invalidate his point.

---

A discussion on trigger warnings and all that other stuff is worthless until we can agree on what the purpose of your colleges & universities is. If the purpose is to churn out a bunch of grads with a worthless piece of paper after fleecing them for $100k, then who the fuck cares? They can have their happy place, they're paying for it and once they graduate they'll just get their resumes circular filed anyway since no one wants to hire them, so they won't have to deal with real life.

If the colleges are actually going to prepare students for the real world and turn out well-adjusted adults, it's now a whole different story. In the real world there are no safe spaces, trigger warnings, or anything of that sort, it's indifferent at best and at times it's outright vicious. I've heard co-workers yell out "you fucking slut!" in frustration among many other sexist and racial phrases, and that's not even getting into the usual workplace politics in a larger business. Is it right? No, but it's probably not going away for quite some time.

So we need to get the kids ready for that...

The flip side of that is, if colleges are actually going to prepare students for the real world, then the colleges aren't doing their jobs if they are standing around with folded hands while the students get abused and attacked and driven off the campus. If I pay you for education, and instead I get a barrage of insults and pranks and social harassment that sabotages my learning environment... I'm not getting what I paid for.

So while common sense limits exist on what can or should be done to protect people, things should be done to protect people.

You shouldn't have to be bulletproof just to get an education. You are under no obligation to agree to have a big target painted on your back. Colleges don't make you sign a waiver saying "I agree not to give a damn if someone paints a shit swastika on my dorm wall." Nor should they.

Calling it "coddling" when someone has the decency to warn a rape victim of something that might cause distress that would prevent their learning, when they are getting paid by said rape victim to provide a good education... That's ridiculous.

---

While I agree with the idea of creating detailed course outlines and attempting to warn people of topics that tend to trigger offense, let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

When did somebody's mental issue become somebody else's problem? Universities, places of commerce, and the general public at large have no responsibility to look out for or cater to anybody's need to avoid certain situations which could trigger a mental breakdown. So why should they, aside from possibly losing a small percentage of students/customers care if they trigger somebody?

For the same reasons that you are required by the law to ensure the physical safety of people on your property. If you do something careless with your property and someone breaks their leg as a result, you're liable. You have a duty to remove physical hazards.

And if (like a university) you sell a product (education), you are responsible for making that product reasonably safe.

You don't sell exercise equipment that is likely to break someone's leg in the course of normal use. That would be grossly negligent and you'd get sued into the dirt if you did that. You can't just say "well, risking huge crippling injuries is the price you pay for your body to become stronger!"

Because the risk of injury isn't part of the normal risks of exercise, if the exercise is performed competently with proper equipment. There are some normal risks- you can't build strength without being sore and tired sometimes. But losing the use of an arm or leg is not a normal risk, and you ARE under an obligation to make sure that doesn't happen to people who use your products.

This is exactly analogous to the situation in mental health and education. You can't just say "well, risking huge crippling psychological traumas is the price you pay for your mind to become stronger!"

There's nothing about the learning environment that SHOULD mean you have to accept such a risk. You might accept the risk of being confused, or bored, or suffering cognitive dissonance that bothers you, or learning about things you wish you didn't know about. But you aren't under an obligation to accept the risk of having thousands of dollars' worth of education blown up because people were harassing you, or because you had to pay for therapy just to be able to function in public again after being horrorstruck by a bizarre and cruel sort of hazing, or some such.

If anything the person who caused the initial harm should be paying for any treatments stemming from the trauma and beyond that it should be paid for by public mental health funding. I know that, especially in the US, this isn't the reality, but that's not the universities problem. That's solely a problem for the person with the mental issue.

If the university allows it to happen on their property and could reasonably have prevented it by performing their duty of care, then they share some liability, I'd say.

Also, if we take this to the far end of the scale, should crowded places such as shopping malls and theaters need to cater to people who are anxious about crowds and could suffer a panic attack? Should they liable for panic attacks caused by their lack of ability to provide crowd free spaces for such people? If not, why should a university be any different?

Thing is, a mall can't provide a crowd-free space and still function. Not while functioning as a mall for the average citizen.

A university CAN function as a discrimination-free space where people with trauma are warned before being forced to dig up old ghosts. There is no reason why you have to put up with racial or sexual discrimination, or harassment and rape, in order to get an education.

They can voluntarily take steps to prevent and lessen mental issues among the students and faculty and I fully agree with them doing so. You'll also note, from your having read my post which you have quoted, that I'm playing devil's advocate. As a person who suffers from depression myself, I'm all for taking steps to minimize things that cause harm.

However, again playing devil's advocate, from a legal standpoint there's nothing, outside of extreme circumstances and willful negligence, holding a university responsible for mental trauma caused other students, past mental trauma, and other issues that could cause somebody mental anguish. The same goes for a grocery store or a private individual. It's simply not on them to avoid topics which may aggravate existing mental issues.

Thing is, that's saying that mental suffering is different than physical suffering. The university does have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the physical safety of students; that's why they invest in campus police, expel students who behave violently, and otherwise act to ensure that people and their belongings are physically safe.

They have a corresponding responsibility to make sure students are mentally safe- are able to think clearly and concentrate fully on their studies. Universities already do this, which is why they spend lots of money providing lounges for student study, and why you can get thrown out of campus housing for being disruptive while people are trying to sleep and study.

Now, "mentally safe" includes some things and does not include others. But it definitely does include "the university won't willfully inflict psychological torture on you." If the university does that, they are failing their obligation to provide you with a learning environment in exchange for your money.

I've got another way to look at this as well.

As a person with depression, should I be able to demand that nobody say or do anything that could cause a worsening of my mood and possibly cause my depression to manifest more strongly? If somebody brings up something sad or mentions something which causes my mind to jump to something that makes me sad can they truly be said to have harmed me in a way which society should hold them responsible for? I would argue that they shouldn't be, after all, most people I'll interact with have no way of knowing I have a mental health issue and I don't expect those that do know me to walk on eggshells on my account.

Which is why I keep using the word 'reasonable.'

The exact nature of what it is 'reasonable' to do depends on specifics.

When it comes to depression, there are relatively few precautions a large institution can make to ensure that depressed people come to no further harm. Aside from making support and counseling available, there's not a lot they can do.

When it comes to things like rape trauma... the university knows, statistically, that a large percentage of its students have been raped in the past. And another percentage will be raped during their time at the university, unless steps are taken. Rape is not that hard a crime to prevent, and triggering other people's rape trauma is not that hard to avoid doing, on average. Therefore, the university should take reasonable steps to prevent rapes on campus. And to avoid common things that might trigger horror for rape victims, knowing that statistically speaking they probably have hundreds or thousands of rape victims on campus.

...Exactly as Alyrium does in his lectures.

I would argue that companies should respect mental health issues the same way they respect issues caused by a physical issue such as diabetes. I'd also argue that health plans should include as much support for these issues at they do for other forms of illness. I wouldn't argue that they should treat me differently when I'm at work the exception being me making it known I'm having an issue and need something to help me work through it. In that case, action would first need to be initiated by me as I wouldn't expect a co-worker or manager to know the signs of my personal flavor of depression well enough to offer meaningful help and would find it annoying if they tried to do so in spite of this fact.

If the issue was something that affected you personally (say, you become incredibly super-depressed whenever you see the color orange), then yes, you have a responsibility to contact others about the accomodations you need.

On the other hand, if the issue was something that affects many people (say, you become incredibly super-depressed whenever your boss makes rape jokes, because bad teenage memories)... your boss has an obligation to stop doing the thing that he should know hurts other people. Because it's not just hurting you, it's hurting a lot of people. Statistically speaking, if he keeps it up for any length of time he IS hurting people.

It's like, if I go out into the woods I'm not obliged to shout "hey, hunters, don't fire guns randomly into bushes, you might hit me!" The hunters are reasonably expected to know that, and to NOT fire guns randomly into bushes, because even if they don't hit me, or if I'm somehow bulletproof... sooner or later that action will result in serious harm.

[Dragon Angel]

Eh? I specifically responded to the only thing I disagreed with. You get that right? Or do you need me to positively reinforce your sensitive ego before I point out criticism?

You're presenting yourself very badly here then along with being a smarmy asshole, because you made sure to specially highlight the "thought fascists" and focus on them without any regard to the people who aren't misguided young idiots. Learn to write clearly bud.

By definition to lampoon something is to make a caricature out of it, you get that right?

To lampoon something, you also need to make sure the idea you have in mind to lampoon is actually related to the idea you are targeting or you're gonna be juuust a teensy bit off the mark, requiring a telepath to make sense of what your bad comedy is.

You get that. Right?

If you honestly believe that she was demonstrating against rape, rather than trying to shame someone found not guilty of it, I've got some magic beans to sell you.

Oh yay, we're getting into rape truthiness bullshit here. I'm starting to get your position quite clearly.

So first you admit that these extreme people who wish to perverse the 'safe space/trigger warning movement' exist and then just brush off any criticism of why we shouldn't empower them? Interesting.

Where did I brush off criticism you dishonest shit? I specifically said: Yes, there are certain groups of activists who take these too far to the point of outright bullying. Retract this or shut the fuck up.

Usually, when one crafts an argument, we like to employ this thing called 'structure'. For instance, I specifically said I don't believe half the shit that 'these students' are flipping out about. The subject matter of 'these students' would be mattress girl, don't use the word violate girl, ban Halloween costume girl, the dean ran me over guy. And that is my prerogative.

But at the same time when I specifically bring up an example I've witness with my own eyes of someone flipping out, I'm demonstrating to the reader that while my default position is 'skepticism' I can't discount that there are genuine instances of something actually 'triggering' someone to the point of fainting.

Usually, when one crafts an argument, they make sure to craft it in such a way that doesn't unintentionally paint every side they are talking about under the same brush. Reread what you said here. You mention Group 1. You mention Group 2. When you enter your third paragraph, while you mention students, students are also quite the proponent of Group 1. You should have specifically mentioned Group 2 and excluded Group 1. It's not hard to misread what you stated there and being completely smug about it is like being completely smug about your lack of clarity.

The proper response to this would be "Well for clarity's sake, I meant _____". Here, you're just coming off again as a smarmy ass.

I'd like you to define "genuine", too. That's an uncertain term I see many people who shit on mental health use to put aside someone's depression, anxiety, et. al. on some arbitrary scale of deservedness. Again, you're speaking with the tone of one of these people, and you'd do best to recognize your position in this.

So, I have to ask; do you understand English? Because having to actually walk you through this while holding your hand is not something I plan on ever doing again. I don't have the time for it, and I'm even less possessed by the inclination.

I understand English quite well thank you. You don't understand how to write. Get that straight.

Nope. You can scroll up to my response to Flagg where I have no problem if one proactively enquires about subject matter so that they can make an informed decision if it is 'safe' for them.

Err no. Again, read my response to Flagg; support should be given I've never argued against that. But you can't expect the entire curriculum to be tailored around someone being 'triggered' by the word 'violate'. It's idiotic. And more to the point, you can't expect anyone to know what could potentially trigger someone in a class of 40, 50, 60 odd people. Get a grip.

Then it isn't much of a stretch for you to admit "well hmm perhaps just including a few lines describing the content won't be obtrusive at all" because this is what people are arguing for. I mean if you don't mind a student inquiring about the subject matter and getting support for it, what is a few lines of text to you? You're either contradicting yourself or you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

Also yes, it's not possible to instantly know what is every single possible trigger. No one in this thread is arguing for that. This is why learning is done (y'know, listening to people? an apparently tough concept.) and guidelines are made over time. No one sensible is asking for an absolute rulebook from the starting gate; this takes an incredible amount of discussion. That I do not know if you are willing to accept will happen.

I'm pretty sure this is the same logic shitheads that are against handicapped accessways use, and before you try to say "well that isn't related durr" how is being forcibly confronted by something that will remind you of an extremely traumatic event in any way not disabling?

This is a joke right?

You clearly don't have the capacity to imagine the kind of mental stress you're virtually imposing on people then, or more likely, you have no idea what you're blathering on about.

Oh, right, you can casually handwave away their experiences because suddenly you're an expert like everyone else on the Internet about how people should feel about their own depressions, their own anxieties, their own traumas.

Not everyone is me the way I am now, where I can confront related subjects to what I've experienced and casually dismiss them as background noise. I don't expect people to be that way either, especially not in an instant or whatever internet tough goalpost you'd like to set for them. This takes time to develop, and while these conditions are under effect they will prove to be a great hindrance to learning. Which is kind of not what you want to happen in an institution you pay for, to learn.

What the fuck are you rambling about?

If you'd written clearly in the first place, I wouldn't have had to type all of that. Silly me.

As above and since when do I have to "check my privilege" asshole?

It's funny that you have no idea what the statement means since I just described exactly why you need to "check your privilege", as you say it. Whose reading comprehension is bad, now?

[Simon_Jester]

Specifically, the argument being that people who don't have to deal with Problem X should not lecture those who do have Problem X on how it's "not such a big deal" and they should, literally or metaphorically, "walk it off."

Right?

[Balrog]

Your survey was specifically talking about statements that are offensive to minority groups.

And...?

It's not even making the point you want to be making because it also shows that support for censoring that speech is lower among college students than it is to people with high school education only.

You realize that's because it includes everyone with a college education, including the people in the older generations who don't subscribe to government censorship, correct?

Your survey doesn't prove dick shit about older people being less open to censorship. If you asked that same age group about whether it's okay to censor violent media, explicit descriptions of sexuality on TV or coarse language, the percentage saying 'no' wouldn't exceed a rounding error.

Because television is broadcasted on public airwaves which anyone, including small children, can watch or listen, and it is a legitimate concern that small children should not be exposed to certain ideas because they are still developing mentally and emotionally; the same shouldn't be said for someone of legal age to smoke or get married. Note that on pay-for services like HBO or satellite radio they have no compunction about censoring violent media or coarse language.

'Fuck'
'Shit'
'Cunt'
'Asshole'
'Motherfucker'

These are all fairly mundane words that nevertheless are likely to provoke a strong negative emotional reaction from a lot of people. Surprisingly we don't consider these people unfit for participation in society.

:eyeroll: Do you arms get tired reaching that far to try and make a point? Because even words specifically used for insulting someone shouldn't be "triggering" if used in the right context. There's a world of difference between "Fuck off you cunt!" and "Cunt is an offensive slang term referring to a woman's body part."

It's interesting how things like these are overexaggerated. Yes, there are certain groups of activists who take these too far to the point of outright bullying, but the people who take the very concept of trigger warnings' and microaggressions' existences to mean "these subjects will be outright banned from the curriculum" is just as much, if not higher. Two extremes, really, and people would be advised to try not falling into them.

It's the extremes which drive the narrative and have the power to influence public policy though, and in the end many moderates help give legitimacy to their voices. Not every Republican is a member of the Tea Party, and in polling they tend to be a small minority, but they are a loud and active minority. It was because of them that many of the more moderated politicians were "primaried" so their extremist candidates could get on the ballot, wherein the rest of the more moderate Republicans voted for them for one reason or another and thereby contributed to the problem.

It isn't the intent of these to ban subjects from ever being taught or give students "easy" ways to avoid keeping up with their classes. Their intent has been to a. maximize learning in educational environments by giving proper warning to prepare for content that could possibly produce intense anxiety,

Except some of the demands are exactly for the ability to avoid being taught this subject matter, which deprives them of an education and (unless the teacher can creatively find an alternative) allows them to skip work their peers still have to do.

and b. minimize shit that people with these anxieties, including marginalized groups, already deal with on a daily basis from the "outside world".
On b.: There is an assumption that is never addressed that people with these anxieties aren't "being prepared for the outside world". What makes you believe they don't already deal with these anxieties in the outside world? The outside world ... prepares someone very much for life in the outside world, already.

Your argument contradicts itself. If they already have the mental fortitude to deal with the real world not giving a shit about their sensibilities and exposing them to things they find offensive, then covering adult-level subject matter in a neutral, academic setting shouldn't be causing them to "flip out." If you've had to deal with actual instances of racism or colonialism and still came out of it a functional human being, then reading Things Fall Apart won't scare you for life. Especially since reading that book is typically done in the context of a history, African literature or similarly categorized classroom which, assuming you need some sort of mental preparation to deal with offensive material, you should already have given the stated subject matter.

It's "internet tough guy"-ism taken to real life to expect people to casually deal with negativity in their professional learning environments--where they may have already dealt with this same sort of negativity throughout their entire lives on a constant, never-ending basis--without a single complaint. This is literally the definition of privilege.

But it's not about dealing with negativity, not in the sense of having a professor that (for example) is openly racist, uses racial epitaphs when referring to minority students and gives them lower grades on purpose compared to his Aryan brothers and sisters. It's reading Heart of Darkness in a class on colonialism and being offended that you had to read about a minority group being oppressed and now you have to run to your safe space to put back together the pieces of your broken emotional state. It's participating in a class about great American plays of the 20th century and not having to examine A Streetcar Named Desire because of implied rape, Fiddler on the Roof for depictions of anti-Semitism, or A Raisin in the Sun for depictions of racism, which not only denies the person the chance to exam great works of art that speak to human experiences but reduces that same great material and defines it in terms of vulgarity.

There are certain words I'm pretty sure people would agree with: N*gg*r. Tr*nny. F*gg*t. Sh*m*l*. Also, other slurs that are occasionally shouted preceding the death of a marginalized individual in a hate crime. If not in public venues, then private venues like learning institutions should most definitely consider banning these. Because let's be serious here, where is the utility in permitting casual use of them outside of demonstrative examples? (which would, of course, be warned about prior to the course)

Easy. A university course, whether literary or musical in nature, which examines the history and development of rap music and features a variety of different rap songs covering the span of the genre. Even those song which don't use explicit slurs like nigger and cunt, a whole swath of the canon covers a variety of "triggering" material: racism, sexism, classism, drug use, violence, rape, etc. Does the course simply not cover those songs, in spite of their artistic value and the unique perspectives they provide, simply because they may be uncomfortable to listen to?

[Crown]

Amusingly, in that case, the male student accused of rape, the one who was the target of the mattress performance (the one that Mattress Girl wanted to leave the university) himself sued the university because he felt like he was being 'abused' and 'slandered' by the fact that this girl kept walking around campus carrying a mattress and calling him a rapist.

That sounds exactly like the very profile of someone who you'd expect the "anti-outrage" crowd to say is 'oversensitive' and needs to 'toughen up' and 'walk it off.'

Failed at he first hurdle. That's impressive.

She wasn't suing anyone over anything, she was carrying heavy objects and saying nasty things about somebody (which may have been true, or not, I don't know and it hardly even matters for our discussion).

By contrast, HE was suing the university for harassment because someone else threatened to carry heavy things around and say mean things about him and demand that he be expelled. Not because the university actually said it would expel him, certainly not because it DID expel him. Because someone was carrying mattresses around campus.

You understand that my objection to the notion of trigger warnings for things like the word 'violate' and safe spaces doesn't mean I would advocate spray painting the word violate all over a school campus just to illicit a response?

Maybe Crown should be going after that guy, not Mattress Girl?

Oh no, guess you didn't understand.

This reminds me of the observation made on the first page that "anti-outrage" people usually aren't actually in favor of no one getting "outraged." They're just in favor of no one getting outraged at them.

Given you can't tell the difference between indifference and malice, I really can't be bothered putting any credence into your insights.

It's only a problem worth remembering and caring about when a woman is publicly lugging mattresses around as a way of protesting the continued presence of a man she claims abused and raped her, and when insults directed against this man are scrawled on bathroom walls.

No, it's a problem when someone exonerated of any wrong doing faces continued abuse from some whack job who can't accept that the world doesn't agree with them, so they have to make someone else's life hell.

It's not a problem worth remembering, to them, if a woman was abused and raped, or if insults against her are scrawled on bathroom walls.

A logical leap with no grounding in any reality of which I'm familiar with. Congratulations, you've won the idiot of thread award.

[Civil War Man]

This reminds me of the observation made on the first page that "anti-outrage" people usually aren't actually in favor of no one getting "outraged." They're just in favor of no one getting outraged at them.

Thank you. In my experience, the "anti-outrage" crowd is a million times louder, more obnoxious, more self-righteous, more easily offended, and more demanding of having their delicate sensibilities protected than even the most extreme so-called "social justice warrior" I've encountered. It gets even more perverse when what they are complaining about is that they are being made uncomfortable with the very idea that someone might issue a warning in an attempt to prevent inadvertently forcing someone to relive a past trauma in their life, or that they are outraged with the idea that another person doesn't want to be constantly ridiculed or marginalized for an accident of their birth.

It makes me immediately skeptical of any anecdotes they bring up, because more often than not I find the examples they bring up of this great assault on their comfort either aren't as cut and dried as they believe, or even sometimes actively undermine their case (see the infamous lawsuit about McDonald's coffee).

Given you can't tell the difference between indifference and malice, I really can't be bothered putting any credence into your insights.

When the indifference is to another person's suffering or trauma, there is functionally no difference.

[Crown]

You're presenting yourself very badly here then along with being a smarmy asshole, because you made sure to specially highlight the "thought fascists" and focus on them without any regard to the people who aren't misguided young idiots. Learn to write clearly bud.

I've already presented the idiot of the thread award, but I might have been rash. We have a new contender.

To lampoon something, you also need to make sure the idea you have in mind to lampoon is actually related to the idea you are targeting or you're gonna be juuust a teensy bit off the mark, requiring a telepath to make sense of what your bad comedy is.

You get that. Right?

And yet, plenty of people had a good idea of exactly who they were lampooning, so I guess they achieved your criteria.

Oh yay, we're getting into rape truthiness bullshit here. I'm starting to get your position quite clearly.

No one has ever lied about rape then?

Where did I brush off criticism you dishonest shit? I specifically said: Yes, there are certain groups of activists who take these too far to the point of outright bullying. Retract this or shut the fuck up.

Oh, I'm sorry, am I to interpret when someone says; "thought fascist" they weren't being flippant. Are fucking for real?

Usually, when one crafts an argument, they make sure to craft it in such a way that doesn't unintentionally paint every side they are talking about under the same brush. Reread what you said here. You mention Group 1. You mention Group 2. When you enter your third paragraph, while you mention students, students are also quite the proponent of Group 1. You should have specifically mentioned Group 2 and excluded Group 1. It's not hard to misread what you stated there and being completely smug about it is like being completely smug about your lack of clarity.

It's not hard for someone trying their best to ignore the entire thing, and yet you managed. Congratulations

The proper response to this would be "Well for clarity's sake, I meant _____". Here, you're just coming off again as a smarmy ass.

Oh, do I not give a shit if you find me smarmy or not.

I'd like you to define "genuine", too. That's an uncertain term I see many people who shit on mental health use to put aside someone's depression, anxiety, et. al. on some arbitrary scale of deservedness. Again, you're speaking with the tone of one of these people, and you'd do best to recognize your position in this.

Define genuine eh? Does it mean something else where you're from?

I understand English quite well thank you. You don't understand how to write. Get that straight.

You want me to define 'genuine' and now you are blaming me for 'not understanding how to write' because you made a dogs breakfast out of an exchange? Fuck off. I already told you that I won't hold your hand through my post again, I note above while you went on (at length) about everything you felt was wrong or misleading or not perfect, you didn't at any point, not once claim that I wasn't actually stating what I later explained to you. So your concession is accepted. Move on.

Then it isn't much of a stretch for you to admit "well hmm perhaps just including a few lines describing the content won't be obtrusive at all" because this is what people are arguing for. I mean if you don't mind a student inquiring about the subject matter and getting support for it, what is a few lines of text to you? You're either contradicting yourself or you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

Also yes, it's not possible to instantly know what is every single possible trigger. No one in this thread is arguing for that. This is why learning is done (y'know, listening to people? an apparently tough concept.) and guidelines are made over time. No one sensible is asking for an absolute rulebook from the starting gate; this takes an incredible amount of discussion. That I do not know if you are willing to accept will happen.

Am I in the fucking twilight zone? Haven't I already "admitted" to exactly just that here?

I'm pretty sure this is the same logic shitheads that are against handicapped accessways use, and before you try to say "well that isn't related durr" how is being forcibly confronted by something that will remind you of an extremely traumatic event in any way not disabling?

This is a joke right?

You clearly don't have the capacity to imagine the kind of mental stress you're virtually imposing on people then, or more likely, you have no idea what you're blathering on about.

I'm asking you if this is a joke because if you scroll up I tell someone that this is the exact type of argument they should use against the "Group 2" people (of which I'm on of) because it is far more analogous to the one he used. So again, do you read English? Or am only I expected to read all of your posts but you get a pass? Evidence

If you'd written clearly in the first place, I wouldn't have had to type all of that. Silly me.

Oh no, this back and forth has demonstrated quite clearly, that it's you. Not me.

It's funny that you have no idea what the statement means since I just described exactly why you need to "check your privilege", as you say it. Whose reading comprehension is bad, now?

On this one I'll give you, I stopped caring to read more of your mindless dribble.

[Crown]

Given you can't tell the difference between indifference and malice, I really can't be bothered putting any credence into your insights.

When the indifference is to another person's suffering or trauma, there is functionally no difference.

Perhaps I used the wrong word, but Simon's idiotic attempt to conflate actively going out of your way to make someone's life a living hell, and not doing exactly that is like someone saying 'Atheism is a religion'. It isn't, just like sitting on the coach isn't a sport.

[Dragon Angel]

Specifically, the argument being that people who don't have to deal with Problem X should not lecture those who do have Problem X on how it's "not such a big deal" and they should, literally or metaphorically, "walk it off."

Right?

Exactly, and where even if a person does have Problem X they do not get to dictate the terms under which other sufferers of Problem X react to it.

It's the extremes which drive the narrative and have the power to influence public policy though, and in the end many moderates help give legitimacy to their voices. Not every Republican is a member of the Tea Party, and in polling they tend to be a small minority, but they are a loud and active minority. It was because of them that many of the more moderated politicians were "primaried" so their extremist candidates could get on the ballot, wherein the rest of the more moderate Republicans voted for them for one reason or another and thereby contributed to the problem.

This is an issue of communication and discussion, though. There needs to be extensive discussion about this and it's not a problem anyone can solve overnight by listening to scattered soundbites here and there. Extremist positions need to be recognized as such, and talks need to be conducted under an intellectual, academic atmosphere and not an emotional and heated atmosphere. University politics are different because they tend to reside on the former side of the spectrum, whereas national politics tend to err on the latter side because of various factors like support of the mainstream media and location.

Except some of the demands are exactly for the ability to avoid being taught this subject matter, which deprives them of an education and (unless the teacher can creatively find an alternative) allows them to skip work their peers still have to do.

Alyrium, Simon, and others will have to elaborate here because I don't know the process, but I'm sure that does not happen nearly as often in practical matters as you would think. From what I gathered in their typing, at the least.

Your argument contradicts itself. If they already have the mental fortitude to deal with the real world not giving a shit about their sensibilities and exposing them to things they find offensive, then covering adult-level subject matter in a neutral, academic setting shouldn't be causing them to "flip out." If you've had to deal with actual instances of racism or colonialism and still came out of it a functional human being, then reading Things Fall Apart won't scare you for life. Especially since reading that book is typically done in the context of a history, African literature or similarly categorized classroom which, assuming you need some sort of mental preparation to deal with offensive material, you should already have given the stated subject matter.

The reason they're called microaggressions is because while they are like pieces of dust in the wind to your eye or bee stings, those pieces of dust can pile up, and the stings gather. The real world being what it is, it's unavoidable to need to deal with microaggressions; that is just a part of life. It serves no purpose to allow them to continue just for the sake of some vague ideal of "toughening up", when there are limits to everyone's tolerance. After all, one whip can give you a cut. Two whippings two cuts. Indefinitely more whippings, and your skin gets flayed off. It's the same principle with these real life events; skin can only be so thick until it buckles and rips asunder. I imagine that is also a cause of many individual flipouts in addition to the cases where isolated events trigger them.

There are silly positions as I mentioned and required reading like Things Fall Apart being arbitrarily banned is something I'd agree with you on, but I neither am a person of color nor do I suffer the societal imbalances people of color often do. I'd value the input of a moderate black person over mine simply because I have that kind of privilege, and there is nuance to this subject, as with anything.

But it's not about dealing with negativity, not in the sense of having a professor that (for example) is openly racist, uses racial epitaphs when referring to minority students and gives them lower grades on purpose compared to his Aryan brothers and sisters. It's reading Heart of Darkness in a class on colonialism and being offended that you had to read about a minority group being oppressed and now you have to run to your safe space to put back together the pieces of your broken emotional state. It's participating in a class about great American plays of the 20th century and not having to examine A Streetcar Named Desire because of implied rape, Fiddler on the Roof for depictions of anti-Semitism, or A Raisin in the Sun for depictions of racism, which not only denies the person the chance to exam great works of art that speak to human experiences but reduces that same great material and defines it in terms of vulgarity.

Above; I'd agree with you on certain of these examples but I don't feel qualified to judge here.

Easy. A university course, whether literary or musical in nature, which examines the history and development of rap music and features a variety of different rap songs covering the span of the genre. Even those song which don't use explicit slurs like nigger and cunt, a whole swath of the canon covers a variety of "triggering" material: racism, sexism, classism, drug use, violence, rape, etc. Does the course simply not cover those songs, in spite of their artistic value and the unique perspectives they provide, simply because they may be uncomfortable to listen to?

Those would be included in demonstrative examples, just under a different context. The course should cover them, but I highly doubt they would be outright stricken from the syllabus. Like I said, I'm only asking for lines of text and appropriate measures otherwise, under the supervision of the professor, in case a student does object.

[Balrog]

Some of the flipouts in question are triggered by descriptions of damaging rapes being inflicted by animals with (by human standards) grotesque anatomy. Or things like parasitic wasps that paralyze other insects and lay eggs inside them, which hatch and eat the victim alive from the inside out.

Those are NOT normal things which appear in everyday society. Being unusually disturbed by such things is not a sign that one is 'unable to function.'

There is a world of difference between "wow, that's rather disturbing that ducks rape each other, I wonder what I will have for lunch today" and "OMG I have been emotionally scared to have learned that! Why did you teach me that!? How dare you!" It's not even the case that these people are being forced to watch ducks rape each other, the simple transmission of this knowledge is apparently so debilitating as to demand conformity to their hypersensitivity.

Because if you look at people born before 1980, if you were to poll opinions on censorship across generations and over long periods of time, you would always find people in favor of censorship. People who advocate censoring poems that portray homosexual relationships as even existing. People who advocate censoring interracial kisses on TV People who advocate censoring troublesome movements that dare to demand the right to vote. People who advocate censoring anti-slavery literature!

It'd be interesting to see which polls you are looking at which show the level of support for government censorship has remained unchanged except for the nature of the censored content, or that the older generations today are in favor of the same level of censorship on a subject other than "offensive statements towards minorities".

What has changed is that instead of seeking to censor those who make the majority uncomfortable, we now have a generation of people who are turning the same impulse of censorship onto those who make the minority uncomfortable.

This is not degeneration, this is not improvement. This is movement 'sideways.'

Even going with the assumption of a 'sideways' movement, it is still worse. You can make objective arguments as to why making it illegal to talk about homosexuality is wrong. It's a lot harder to say "well, there's a potential that someone, somewhere might take offense to this statement, so anyone who says it should be arrested."

Is it better to make the environment unsafe by saying things that can cause people to be horrorstruck and disturbed without even doing them the courtesy of telling them in advance?

When the supposedly horror-striking things being said are of such a mundane and otherwise inoffensive nature, no. If I'm in conversation with someone and the topic turns to insects, relaying the above simple description about certain insects which lay their eggs inside other insects may elicit an "Eww that's gross" or even "Wow that's pretty cool." What it shouldn't elict is "OMG shitlord you just truamatized me!" because adults who have achieved mental and emotional maturity shouldn't be traumatized by textbook descriptions of naturally-occurring events.

[Dragon Angel]

I've already presented the idiot of the thread award, but I might have been rash. We have a new contender.

It's not hard for someone trying their best to ignore the entire thing, and yet you managed. Congratulations

If you have nothing but ad hominem or dodging the argument to contribute from here on then I guess our conversation is over. Thank God.

And yet, plenty of people had a good idea of exactly who they were lampooning, so I guess they achieved your criteria.

Plenty of people, being people who don't know what they're talking about re: safe spaces? You're operating under such a vastly different definition from the reality it's incredible.

I knew what this was trying to "lampoon" simply because I've heard this fallacy ad nauseum by this point.

No one has ever lied about rape then?

No, there have been people who have lied. However the fact that little shits like you bring up OH HEY THERE'S A POTENTIAL THIS VICTIM IS LYING nearly every single time rape is mentioned, makes discussion of that impossible because you're oh so afraid of men being falsely accused that women have absolutely no room whatsoever to weigh in.

See: You bringing this truthiness bullshit up when I mentioned the Mattress Performance was unrelated to the topic. See a pattern?

Oh, I'm sorry, am I to interpret when someone says; "thought fascist" they weren't being flippant. Are fucking for real?

Yeah, I'm for real, because the concept of trigger warnings is obviously Orwellian.

Oh, do I not give a shit if you find me smarmy or not.

I'm pretty sure you don't. I thought I'd mention it for your teeny little spine though.

Define genuine eh? Does it mean something else where you're from?

"Genuine" is a very subjective term in mental health that tends to be thrown as some off-brand "objective" by dipshits like you, so yes, it could probably mean something else.

You want me to define 'genuine' and now you are blaming me for 'not understanding how to write' because you made a dogs breakfast out of an exchange? Fuck off. I already told you that I won't hold your hand through my post again, I note above while you went on (at length) about everything you felt was wrong or misleading or not perfect, you didn't at any point, not once claim that I wasn't actually stating what I later explained to you. So your concession is accepted. Move on.

Life is easy when you don't address arguments isn't it. Your concession is indeed accepted.

Am I in the fucking twilight zone? Haven't I already "admitted" to exactly just that here?

...okay? Then we can agree on an idea without chestbeating, or would you prefer to measure your e-penis? A simple "Finally, we agree on SOMETHING!" would suffice.

I'm asking you if this is a joke because if you scroll up I tell someone that this is the exact type of argument they should use against the "Group 2" people (of which I'm on of) because it is far more analogous to the one he used. So again, do you read English? Or am only I expected to read all of your posts but you get a pass? Evidence

It's admittedly tough for my English-challenged mind to sift through your self-righteous drivel but it's difficult to tell if you really believe this or merely playing devil's advocate. You also didn't allude to Group 2 there, so, shrug emoji.

If you really understood the ramifications of what you're trying to force upon people, then you would be much more open to the prospect of at least discussing this subject, instead of going on some angry rant. I hope I'm not hurting your feelings!

Oh no, this back and forth has demonstrated quite clearly, that it's you. Not me.

"no u" isn't a valid debating tactic either.

On this one I'll give you, I stopped caring to read more of your mindless dribble.

Please do since you won't deign to research just what the hell you're talking about. It'll spare me the dishonest tactics you like to employ as well, so thank you.

[Dragon Angel]

This reminds me of the observation made on the first page that "anti-outrage" people usually aren't actually in favor of no one getting "outraged." They're just in favor of no one getting outraged at them.

Thank you. In my experience, the "anti-outrage" crowd is a million times louder, more obnoxious, more self-righteous, more easily offended, and more demanding of having their delicate sensibilities protected than even the most extreme so-called "social justice warrior" I've encountered. It gets even more perverse when what they are complaining about is that they are being made uncomfortable with the very idea that someone might issue a warning in an attempt to prevent inadvertently forcing someone to relive a past trauma in their life, or that they are outraged with the idea that another person doesn't want to be constantly ridiculed or marginalized for an accident of their birth.

This is my experience as well. The incredible irony, too, is that for all their hemming and hawing of "free speech!" and "you have to listen to other points of view!", they make absolutely no effort to reach beyond their own little echo chambers. I've seen plenty-a-debating comment against their ideological masterpieces on their perfect forums deleted, meanwhile they tolerate and even encourage the most vile shit that they decry the "SJWs" doing being done to their enemies.

It's not only a hypocrisy, it's an extremely amusing and revelatory one. Or at least, it would be if actual marginalized people weren't put in danger every single day because of the most dangerous of them. Reactionary extremism branded as "Rationalism".

[Crown]

If you have nothing but ad hominem or dodging the argument to contribute from here on then I guess our conversation is over. Thank God.

Pot. Kettle.

Plenty of people, being people who don't know what they're talking about re: safe spaces? You're operating under such a vastly different definition from the reality it's incredible.

I knew what this was trying to "lampoon" simply because I've heard this fallacy ad nauseum by this point.

The definition of safe spaces was presented in the opening post. I can link examples of people un-knowingly proving everything that South Park clip showed as accurate if you require, but why bother?

No, there have been people who have lied. However the fact that little shits like you bring up OH HEY THERE'S A POTENTIAL THIS VICTIM IS LYING nearly every single time rape is mentioned, makes discussion of that impossible because you're oh so afraid of men being falsely accused that women have absolutely no room whatsoever to weigh in.

See: You bringing this truthiness bullshit up when I mentioned the Mattress Performance was unrelated to the topic. See a pattern?

No, because I don't bring up "OH HEY THERE'S A POTENTIAL THIS VICTIM IS LYING nearly every single time rape is mentioned", never have I ever. Not once. Why I'm bringing it up in specific to Mattress Girl is because after an investigation it was found that she had no grounds for her accusation. You understand that right?

Yeah, I'm for real, because the concept of trigger warnings is obviously Orwellian.

Of course it's Orwellian, but more than that it's fucking asinine. The idea that law students shouldn't be taught rape law because it might 'trigger' someone is fucking stupid.

"Genuine" is a very subjective term in mental health that tends to be thrown as some off-brand "objective" by dipshits like you, so yes, it could probably mean something else.

Genuine has a definition, it's in the dictionary. Buy one and work your way forward until you get to it. That's what I mean by genuine.

Life is easy when you don't address arguments isn't it. Your concession is indeed accepted.

HAHAHAHAHA

...okay? Then we can agree on an idea without chestbeating, or would you prefer to measure your e-penis? A simple "Finally, we agree on SOMETHING!" would suffice.

No, no, no, no cunt eyes. You don't get to play the outraged that I didn't read all of your post card and then brush over instances when you are guilty of the same fucking thing as if it's not a big deal you little hypocrite time sink waste of air supine protoplasmic invertebrate fuck knuckle. I'm responding to the article specifically mentioning examples of pretty fucking outrageous behaviour at US college campuses over the cover of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces'. When I was attacked by Flagg I clearly, concisely and without malice clarified that of course I'm not against people being forewarned that 'this program may contain some things that viewers might find offensive, it contains strong violence and nudity'.

That is not what the article posted in OP is about. If you didn't read the OP, and thus had no context of what we are discussing. That is on you. What a waste of fucking time you are.

It's admittedly tough for my English-challenged mind to sift through your self-righteous drivel but it's difficult to tell if you really believe this or merely playing devil's advocate. You also didn't allude to Group 2 there, so, shrug emoji.

HAHAHA, whatever you illiterate fuck. Do one. Remember all the outrage because I didn't read something you posted in another post? Where did all that self righteous go I wonder? Could it be embarrassment at one's hypocrisy being laid bare? Can a supine protoplasmic invertebrate nothing like you actually feel embarrassment?

If you really understood the ramifications of what you're trying to force upon people, then you would be much more open to the prospect of at least discussing this subject, instead of going on some angry rant. I hope I'm not hurting your feelings!

Don't mention feelings, they trigger me. And if I'm anything is fucking astounded that I've bothered to reply to someone who is guilty of every single 'crime' they accuse me of.

"no u" isn't a valid debating tactic either.

What debate? This is now just plain mockery now.

Please do since you won't deign to research just what the hell you're talking about. It'll spare me the dishonest tactics you like to employ as well, so thank you.

Did you read the OP? Yes or no?

[Flagg]

Anyone who uses any variation of the term "genuine mental illness" in that context in a thread like this has the "genuine mental illness" of being an empathy lacking waste of meat and bone.

Civil War Man has it dead on, as well. Apparently people who don't want to needlessly inflict mental pain or trauma should give a "trigger warning" before saying so, so that insecure douchebags like Crown don't get offended and have to retreat to their "safe space". You know, places where they can whine about strawmen of actual positions people take on matters like this with like-minded dickheads. They can watch South Park together.

[Crown]

Anyone who uses any variation of the term "genuine mental illness" in that context in a thread like this has the "genuine mental illness" of being an empathy lacking waste of meat and bone.

No one is using that term, and I could give a shit if you like me.

Civil War Man has it dead on, as well. Apparently people who don't want to needlessly inflict mental pain or trauma should give a "trigger warning" before saying so, so that insecure douchebags like Crown don't get offended and have to retreat to their "safe space". You know, places where they can whine about strawmen of actual positions people take on matters like this with like-minded dickheads. They can watch South Park together.

The South Park clip is parodying the people who don't want the word 'violate' to be used in Law School or students taught about rape law at Law School because it might 'trigger' someone.

With all sincerity Flagg, fuck off.

[Dragon Angel]

Pot. Kettle.

Do point it out, and I thought we were done here?

The definition of safe spaces was presented in the opening post. I can link examples of people un-knowingly proving everything that South Park clip showed as accurate if you require, but why bother?

Definitions. Reactionary article. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. I won't because you haven't made much if any effort to be honest with me either.

No, because I don't bring up "OH HEY THERE'S A POTENTIAL THIS VICTIM IS LYING nearly every single time rape is mentioned", never have I ever. Not once. Why I'm bringing it up in specific to Mattress Girl is because after an investigation it was found that she had no grounds for her accusation. You understand that right?

Why did you even bring this subject up then? I literally just told you Mattress Girl was not related to this topic. A little self-examination into your subconscious is too tough for you? Toughen up brah.

Of course it's Orwellian, but more than that it's fucking asinine. The idea that law students shouldn't be taught rape law because it might 'trigger' someone is fucking stupid.

insert sigh emoji

The people in this thread arguing for trigger warnings. Are not arguing for that. And have already addressed this you dishonest brat.

Genuine has a definition, it's in the dictionary. Buy one and work your way forward until you get to it. That's what I mean by genuine.

Man, you REALLY have no idea what you're talking about and it SHOWS.

No, no, no, no cunt eyes. You don't get to play the outraged that I didn't read all of your post card and then brush over instances when you are guilty of the same fucking thing as if it's not a big deal you little hypocrite time sink waste of air supine protoplasmic invertebrate fuck knuckle. I'm responding to the article specifically mentioning examples of pretty fucking outrageous behaviour at US college campuses over the cover of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces'. When I was attacked by Flagg I clearly, concisely and without malice clarified that of course I'm not against people being forewarned that 'this program may contain some things that viewers might find offensive, it contains strong violence and nudity'.

That is not what the article posted in OP is about. If you didn't read the OP, and thus had no context of what we are discussing. That is on you. What a waste of fucking time you are.

You're too busy thinking of ways to embarrass yourself than actually read what I'm saying so yeah, you are a waste of time, I'll agree with that.

HAHAHA, whatever you illiterate fuck. Do one. Remember all the outrage because I didn't read something you posted in another post? Where did all that self righteous go I wonder? Could it be embarrassment at one's hypocrisy being laid bare? Can a supine protoplasmic invertebrate nothing like you actually feel embarrassment?

I feel embarrassment. I feel embarrassed for you being a representative of humanity's sapience.

Don't mention feelings, they trigger me. And if I'm anything is fucking astounded that I've bothered to reply to someone who is guilty of every single 'crime' they accuse me of.

I'm waiting for you to stop brah.

What debate? This is now just plain self-mockery now.

You deleted something there so I fixed that for you and re-added it.

[Dragon Angel]

Anyone who uses any variation of the term "genuine mental illness" in that context in a thread like this has the "genuine mental illness" of being an empathy lacking waste of meat and bone.

No one is using that term, and I could give a shit if you like me.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3950456

But at the same time when I specifically bring up an example I've witness with my own eyes of someone flipping out, I'm demonstrating to the reader that while my default position is 'skepticism' I can't discount that there are genuine instances of something actually 'triggering' someone to the point of fainting.

I also love how you love telling people to fuck off, yet when people metaphorically tell you to fuck off you don't seem to extend the courtesy.

[Balrog]

Specifically, the argument being that people who don't have to deal with Problem X should not lecture those who do have Problem X on how it's "not such a big deal" and they should, literally or metaphorically, "walk it off."

Right?

Exactly, and where even if a person does have Problem X they do not get to dictate the terms under which other sufferers of Problem X react to it.

People are free to react to whatever they want however they like. You could be traumatized by a picture of a water bucket and end up spending days in your room rocking yourself back and forth. Other people are free to ridicule you for this response, they might suggest you receive help for this overreaction, but you are free to spend as long as you want in that state. The issue becomes when you want your hypersensitive reactions to be consequence-free (in art class you have to draw a picture of a water bucket but you get to skip that day and won't be graded on it) or for others to be affected by it (because water buckets traumatize you, all water buckets are banned from campus property).

This is an issue of communication and discussion, though. There needs to be extensive discussion about this and it's not a problem anyone can solve overnight by listening to scattered soundbites here and there. Extremist positions need to be recognized as such, and talks need to be conducted under an intellectual, academic atmosphere and not an emotional and heated atmosphere. University politics are different because they tend to reside on the former side of the spectrum, whereas national politics tend to err on the latter side because of various factors like support of the mainstream media and location.

I agree this is a serious issue requiring serious discussion, I just question just how much more university politics are handled on an "intellectual, academic" atmosphere considering the recent events at Missouri or the Yale faculty member regarding Halloween costumes. It seems if anything the trigger warning/safe space Es-Jay-Double-U's are the ones operating on an emotional and heated level.

Alyrium, Simon, and others will have to elaborate here because I don't know the process, but I'm sure that does not happen nearly as often in practical matters as you would think. From what I gathered in their typing, at the least.

It doesn't have to be commonplace to have a toxic affect on the environment.

The reason they're called microaggressions is because while they are like pieces of dust in the wind to your eye or bee stings, those pieces of dust can pile up, and the stings gather. The real world being what it is, it's unavoidable to need to deal with microaggressions; that is just a part of life. It serves no purpose to allow them to continue just for the sake of some vague ideal of "toughening up", when there are limits to everyone's tolerance. After all, one whip can give you a cut. Two whippings two cuts. Indefinitely more whippings, and your skin gets flayed off. It's the same principle with these real life events; skin can only be so thick until it buckles and rips asunder. I imagine that is also a cause of many individual flipouts in addition to the cases where isolated events trigger them.

The problem arises with defining what is and isn't a microaggression. It's asking people to police their thoughts and actions on the vague pretext that someone might be offended, not for something explicit like using a racial slur or even being rude like asking to touch someone's hair, but otherwise innocuous statements which people make out of genuine belief rather than deep-seated need to oppress others.

Those would be included in demonstrative examples, just under a different context. The course should cover them, but I highly doubt they would be outright stricken from the syllabus. Like I said, I'm only asking for lines of text and appropriate measures otherwise, under the supervision of the professor, in case a student does object.

That's the thing though, university classes are by definition being demonstrative in discussing serious topics like racism, sexism and oppression. It's not like the professor is coming in and showing snuff porn to the students.

[Crown]

Do point it out, and I thought we were done here?

Smarmy Asshole was a term of endearment?

Definitions. Reactionary article. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. I won't because you haven't made much if any effort to be honest with me either.

Article this thread is based on, that my interaction within it is predicated upon. Context.

Why did you even bring this subject up then? I literally just told you Mattress Girl was not related to this topic. A little self-examination into your subconscious is too tough for you? Toughen up brah.

I lumped her in the same category of reactionary children who can't cope with reality. I think her pathological actions justified inclusion. /flex

insert sigh emoji

The people in this thread arguing for trigger warnings. Are not arguing for that. And have already addressed this you dishonest brat.

insert giving you the finger emoji ... oh wait, I don't have to pretend that one;

And within, what three? Four? Interactions I had cleared up my position with Flagg only for you to tack on, strawman it, lie about it and now pretend that it never happened?

Man, you REALLY have no idea what you're talking about and it SHOWS.

No seriously, it's in the dictionary.

No, no, no, no cunt eyes. You don't get to play the outraged that I didn't read all of your post card and then brush over instances when you are guilty of the same fucking thing as if it's not a big deal you little hypocrite time sink waste of air supine protoplasmic invertebrate fuck knuckle. I'm responding to the article specifically mentioning examples of pretty fucking outrageous behaviour at US college campuses over the cover of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces'. When I was attacked by Flagg I clearly, concisely and without malice clarified that of course I'm not against people being forewarned that 'this program may contain some things that viewers might find offensive, it contains strong violence and nudity'.

That is not what the article posted in OP is about. If you didn't read the OP, and thus had no context of what we are discussing. That is on you. What a waste of fucking time you are.

You're too busy thinking of ways to embarrass yourself than actually read what I'm saying so yeah, you are a waste of time, I'll agree with that.

Genius non-response there.

I feel embarrassment. I feel embarrassed for you being a representative of humanity's sapience.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

Hey, remember the time when you got all outraged that I hadn't read your other posts? Fun times.

I'm waiting for you to stop brah.

Oh, mockery of stupid cunts I can do in between reps. This will go on, until you be the 'big person' and admit you done fucked up.

You deleted something there so I fixed that for you and re-added it.

No, it was proofread and accurate at first issue. Ta.

Anyone who uses any variation of the term "genuine mental illness" in that context in a thread like this has the "genuine mental illness" of being an empathy lacking waste of meat and bone.

No one is using that term, and I could give a shit if you like me.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3950456

But at the same time when I specifically bring up an example I've witness with my own eyes of someone flipping out, I'm demonstrating to the reader that while my default position is 'skepticism' I can't discount that there are genuine instances of something actually 'triggering' someone to the point of fainting.

So you're quoting me saying that I believe that there are genuine examples of people 'triggering' to mean that I somehow am I denier of mental illness. My how sophistic dishonesty grows.

I also love how you love telling people to fuck off, yet when people metaphorically tell you to fuck off you don't seem to extend the courtesy.

"Also love" eh? So there is more than one of my many attributes you find lovable? I feel special now.

[Dragon Angel]

People are free to react to whatever they want however they like. You could be traumatized by a picture of a water bucket and end up spending days in your room rocking yourself back and forth. Other people are free to ridicule you for this response, they might suggest you receive help for this overreaction, but you are free to spend as long as you want in that state. The issue becomes when you want your hypersensitive reactions to be consequence-free (in art class you have to draw a picture of a water bucket but you get to skip that day and won't be graded on it) or for others to be affected by it (because water buckets traumatize you, all water buckets are banned from campus property).

...You see, we're going to have a problem here soon. "Other people are free to ridicule you ..." is not just heartless, but completely not conducive to a professional learning environment. Sure, assholes will be assholes, but this would rightfully not be tolerated in an academic space without issue.

I'm going to assume you chose "a water bucket" to intentionally try into the absurd, rather than make a nasty and ridiculous caricature of what can happen to be extreme trauma. As a schizophrenic, I often see people make ridiculous mean-spirited "jokes" at my expense, as this YouTuber experienced and really, as much as I'm used to them, they still dig at me. When we talk about traumas that affect real people, let's not dive into the absurd because then you have situations like this being accepted as the norm.

I agree this is a serious issue requiring serious discussion, I just question just how much more university politics are handled on an "intellectual, academic" atmosphere considering the recent events at Missouri or the Yale faculty member regarding Halloween costumes. It seems if anything the trigger warning/safe space Es-Jay-Double-U's are the ones operating on an emotional and heated level.

I'm pretty sure decisions like these at Ivy League level schools and other highly-accredited universities aren't just made on the fly. There are serious reputations that have to be kept that would be utterly smeared if that was done on a regular basis. If not for professional politics, then most certainly personal ones.

The problem arises with defining what is and isn't a microaggression. It's asking people to police their thoughts and actions on the vague pretext that someone might be offended, not for something explicit like using a racial slur or even being rude like asking to touch someone's hair, but otherwise innocuous statements which people make out of genuine belief rather than deep-seated need to oppress others.

Police their thoughts? No, that's impossible and anyone asking for that is being an idiot. Police their actions? That's something you already do everywhere else, though. I definitely understand that people will make accidental offensive statements or gestures, and whenever it happens I really try my best to understand that hey, they may not know better. That's why I let them know, and then the onus is on them to learn or, if they forget, make a better effort to learn the next time they offend.

Thoughts are thoughts, and you can't control what passes through your head meat, but you can control what you do when it passes. This is what makes humans way above animals, after all. We aren't purely driven by instinct or reaction; we have the capability to think about what we ... think. We have the capability to choose what is right, beyond what our id tells us.

That's the thing though, university classes are by definition being demonstrative in discussing serious topics like racism, sexism and oppression. It's not like the professor is coming in and showing snuff porn to the students.

Well I was coming from the angle of casually using it without any relation to the lesson, but yes I see what you mean.