Peak mollycoddling

[Saint Frankenstein]

Those people are neurotic.

 

[Revoltingest]

If society become wholly and truly equal, where race, gender, etc. were completely irrelevant, these people would pull their hair out.

"Truly equal" is too utopian to happen.
Every inevitable imperfection will be cause for invented woe.

 

[dust1n]

Sure. A better example -- better in some ways, at least -- would be the modern tendency to censor any speech found offensive on the grounds that offense can amount to harm. It's a better example because it would create an easy to exploit opportunity for destroying liberties and freedoms of all stripes, since nearly all liberties and freedoms ultimately depend on free speech. The notion that offense can be grounds for censoring speech should be written on toilet paper and the paper then subjected to its normal use and disposal. It is dangerous and amounts to mollycoddling.

I don't disagree with the general premise of the OP, as it is pretty absurd, but I do find this notion that criticism is anyway comparable to censorship lacking of much value. If I use my free speech to say anything, and the entire world wants to call me ****** lover, or ***** man, dick boy, or whatever, or write my employer to try to get my fired, etc., I'd be highly annoyed, but I fail to see how I'm being censored. The notion that censorship extends beyond some legal meaning is ambiguous at best.

 

[dust1n]

Are these articles real?
My goodness. So people may have 'triggers' for no reason at all (in the words of the article) and we are supposed to work around these by ensuring the triggers aren't used/shown/etc to the 'victim'? Phhht...the name for that is 'enabling' in my opinion.

The level of psychological HARM this type of enablement can cause is very real.

That was the one particular strange thing I noticed, was an admission that anything could be a trigger for some sort of acute stress disorder. But how is it possible to warn everyone of everything, if the thing you are warning people about is something only they know about in advance?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That was the one particular strange thing I noticed, was an admission that anything could be a trigger for some sort of acute stress disorder. But how is it possible to warn everyone of everything, if the thing you are warning people about is something only they know about in advance?

I just read it as a completely insular way of looking at the world. To some extent, I blame parents.

 

[Quagmire]

Any criticism of trendy politically correct terms or concepts is equivalent to torturing kittens. You wouldn't want to torture kittens, would you?

What are their political leanings?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The debate over content warning/trigger warning is a bit much, but I don't see why people are throwing a fit over them. We already have had them on movies for awhile, Clinton signed the V-Chip into law, it happened to video games, and when I was a kid it sold music.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't disagree with the general premise of the OP, as it is pretty absurd, but I do find this notion that criticism is anyway comparable to censorship lacking of much value. If I use my free speech to say anything, and the entire world wants to call me ****** lover, or ***** man, dick boy, or whatever, or write my employer to try to get my fired, etc., I'd be highly annoyed, but I fail to see how I'm being censored. The notion that censorship extends beyond some legal meaning is ambiguous at best.

You might be unaware of this, but people are being censored today because their speech is deemed offensive to others. By censored, I mean they are having their speeches cancelled, and perhaps other measures as well. Beyond that, there are calls for even more censorship. This is altogether on a different level than the name calling your refer to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The debate over content warning/trigger warning is a bit much, but I don't see why people are throwing a fit over them. We already have had them on movies for awhile, Clinton signed the V-Chip into law, it happened to video games, and when I was a kid it sold music.

Yeah, but the article was literally arguing that 'Trigger Warning' was a violent term that shouldn't be used. In other words, you'd need a content warning to warn that a trigger warning was about to be used.
It also argued that people can have issues due to traumatic experiences, or due to no apparent reason at all.

Honestly, Joe Bloggs who has never had anything traumatic happen in his life, but has a morbid fear of teddy bears, and wants a 'content warning' rather than a 'trigger warning' needs to get over himself.
On the other hand, I'm fine with warnings that make some rational sense.

 

[dust1n]

You might be unaware of this, but people are being censored today because their speech is deemed offensive to others. By censored, I mean they are having their speeches cancelled, and perhaps other measures as well. Beyond that, there are calls for even more censorship. This is altogether on a different level than the name calling your refer to.

...Right, so if I own a school, invite someone to speak at my event, two weeks later, it's revealed they are a child molester, so I cancelled the speech. Is this censorship?

 

[dust1n]

I just read it as a completely insular way of looking at the world. To some extent, I blame parents.

I really don't know enough about the writer to make too much judgment about it. It read to me as contradictory and nonsensical, in it's totality, that is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I really don't know enough about the writer to make too much judgment about it. It read to me as contradictory and nonsensical, in it's totality, that is.

Stop wasting posts to agree with me, else up your post cap to 25000.

 

[dust1n]

Stop wasting posts to agree with me, else up your post cap to 25000.

Only 16 left.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only 16 left.

You're allowed to change your mind, or to return occasionally.

 

[Sunstone]

...Right, so if I own a school, invite someone to speak at my event, two weeks later, it's revealed they are a child molester, so I cancelled the speech. Is this censorship?

Of course it is. It may be justified censorship, but it's censorship. Censorship refers to the act, not the motive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Honestly, Joe Bloggs who has never had anything traumatic happen in his life, but has a morbid fear of teddy bears, and wants a 'content warning' rather than a 'trigger warning' needs to get over himself.
On the other hand, I'm fine with warnings that make some rational sense.

I do agree that, on a basis of how it's worded, content warning (or advisory) is the better choice, as it refers to the content of the item and trigger, as a word, is not really that good of a choice of words in that context. Yes, they are intended to inform people over content that may "trigger" a negative response, but you can't even describe them without referring to either the concept of or the specific word of "content." But I don't think anyone is really going to be loosing any sleep over it except for this Gillian Brown and anyone that may follow her. I generally support patrons, indulgers, clients, and consumers be informed, so I think content advisories (probably a better word because they provide information about something that may potentially be problematic for some and not an inherent danger) are a good idea in general, if that is such an issue for it to be blogged about in such a way she really needs some real issues and problems to worry about. Such as giving feminism a bad name, and poorly representing it, for starters. The entire reason for the feminist movement, for another. And then taking that energy to focus on how veterans are **** on after they return to war, how feeding the poor is criminal in some places, the disturbing lack of women present when issues regarding women's health are legislated, or how we essentially rely on jail and prison as a solution for our mentally ill.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Only 16 left.

Don't do it man!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do agree that, on a basis of how it's worded, content warning (or advisory) is the better choice, as it refers to the content of the item and trigger, as a word, is not really that good of a choice of words in that context. Yes, they are intended to inform people over content that may "trigger" a negative response, but you can't even describe them without referring to either the concept of or the specific word of "content." But I don't think anyone is really going to be loosing any sleep over it except for this Gillian Brown and anyone that may follow her. I generally support patrons, indulgers, clients, and consumers be informed, so I think content advisories (probably a better word because they provide information about something that may potentially be problematic for some and not an inherent danger) are a good idea in general, if that is such an issue for it to be blogged about in such a way she really needs some real issues and problems to worry about. Such as giving feminism a bad name, and poorly representing it, for starters. The entire reason for the feminist movement, for another. And then taking that energy to focus on how veterans are **** on after they return to war, how feeding the poor is criminal in some places, the disturbing lack of women present when issues regarding women's health are legislated, or how we essentially rely on jail and prison as a solution for our mentally ill.

Makes sense. I've never heard 'trigger warning' to be honest. We get Content Advisories here (I think). But I wouldn't be worried about the word 'trigger' traumatizing anyone. Just an unusual way to describe something.

 

[YmirGF]

Only 16 left.

No..... TTttttttt r i g gg e eeerrrr w arrrrr n i n gg

*curls up into a ball and starts feverishly sucking his thumb*

 

[dust1n]

Of course it is. It may be justified censorship, but it's censorship. Censorship refers to the act, not the motive.

So when is censorship justified?