Political Ocean's 11

[Malcador]

Why is there nothing Trump could say that she wouldn't take badly?

 

She seemed dubious his body was in the casket. If she wanted to see it, should just warn her and let her.

[Lexx]

Just slap a big TRIGGER WARNING sticker on it and be done.

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

It's obvious we need trigger warnings on everything including food, water, everything you see in a supermarket, escalators, elevators, sporting events, participation medals, etc.

 

Because one person may have had a bad experience with a mars bar and we need to protect everyone and give them an informed decision on whether they should participate in everything we do in life.

 

You've just reinvented the signs and nutrition labels.

 

 

You're suggesting trigger warnings are the same as nutrition labels?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

It's obvious we need trigger warnings on everything including food, water, everything you see in a supermarket, escalators, elevators, sporting events, participation medals, etc.

 

Because one person may have had a bad experience with a mars bar and we need to protect everyone and give them an informed decision on whether they should participate in everything we do in life.

 

You've just reinvented the signs and nutrition labels.

 

 

You're suggesting trigger warnings are the same as nutrition labels?

 

 

you sound like you're triggered by the suggestion

[injurai]

When having fun goes wrong.

[redneckdevil]

Why is there nothing Trump could say that she wouldn't take badly?

 

She seemed dubious his body was in the casket. If she wanted to see it, should just warn her and let her.

I agree, if God forbid it was my kids, I don't give a god damn ****, you will not stop me from seeing their remains. No reason what so ever, it may drive me crazy, don't care, it will be done God forbid.

[Bartimaeus]

Alternatively, parental guidelines, which already cover most "objectionable" content, could just be expanded to be a little more specific in why it has the rating it has. You can read much of why a movie gets the rating it gets on sites like IMDB, but it's crowdsourced information...which seems kind of silly when we have a literal rating agency that keeps track of this stuff to some degree already - you'd think they'd have their own site for this sort of thing already. Same with video games, really - although I'm not really too sure how TV show ratings work, to be honest. The back of a movie cover probably isn't the perfect place to put all of that information, but it could easily direct you to somewhere that does. I wouldn't think it'd be really necessary to have such content warnings in the movie itself, but I mean, if it's literally just like 5 seconds that quickly summarize up the type of objectionable content and, again, direct you somewhere else for more specific info, I guess I don't really care. You almost certainly won't get those warnings if you happen to watch it on cable or online or something: if content providers don't think there's enough time for displaying the credits at super-speed and even random bits of the show/movie you're watching that they've deemed "less important" than showing more commercials or whatever (see Seinfeld re-runs and "TV" cuts of virtually every movie), they sure as heck aren't going to want to spend time on showing the rating of the movie.

 

Personally, I'm not very comfortable with gore for the most part, and the onus kind of falls on me to pay attention to the rating of the content I'm (potentially) choosing to watch and investigating further to make sure I'm not subject to something I don't want to be. For the most part, that's kind of how things work in life. However, having a few more tools at your disposal for figuring that information out is always good, and spending literally just a few seconds summarizing up the objectionable content is no skin off my back. I'm more offended at the idiotic anti-copyright nonsense - the whole "we will knock down your door and literally cannibalize your family in the middle of the night while making you watch if you illegally share this movie" FBI warnings - and the bloody ADVERTISEMENTS, at the beginning of each legitimate movie you own. Like, c'mon guys: if I HADN'T bought this, I wouldn't be seeing this crap.

 

(e): The Motion Picture Association of America (US's rating agency) actually does have a website...but it's predictably useless and doesn't even provide any information on its ratings. Pah.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Fighter]

in question of that sun article and not that I am fun of Putin but:

 

"He can be a genius mathematician, a brilliant musician or a soldier, a man who can fight without fear, compassion, regret or pain.

"As you understand, humanity can enter, and most likely it will in the near future, a very difficult and very responsible period of its existence.

"What I have just described might be worse than a nuclear bomb."

The autocrat warned that world leaders must agree on regulations to control the creation of mass-killing super soldiers.

He said: "When we do something, whatever we do, I want to reiterate it again - we must never forget about the ethical foundations of our work."

 

I don't know but those citations does not sound that crazy, maybe that nuke stuff overblown but still. I mean if you read this without contect would you be surprised if it would be qotation from any other politician? There is kinda deep ethical dilema in genetic modifications of humans

 

Putin would be the first in line to make "super soldiers". 99% of everything he says is bull****. Should see him talk about free speech, free markets, and the rule of law. And then everything he does is the exact opposite.

[Chilloutman]

That is quite possible, but that quote on itself does not seem bad

[Gfted1]

And it was just used again in an attempted wicked sick burn. HeeHaw HeeHaw. I suppose its a step up from completely fabricated and misattributed conversations, so we have that going for us.

 

And idk, Putin kind of makes me smile. Now he doesn't rule by "western" ideals but he sure can rile the hell out of the rest of the world without breaking a sweat.

[Blarghagh]

Is Schadenfreude your biggest hobby or something?

 

I'd continue to argue but clearly we don't give weight to each other's arguments so there'd be little point. Plus I realized that in the same way that a trigger warning wouldn't affect you in the slightest, you voicing your opinion, as much as I disagree with it and think it's quite frankly disturbing, doesn't affect me in the slightest.

[Gfted1]

Shadenfreude = reveling in others misfortune? Nope, not my bag. Is there a "enfreude" that goes with "reveling in the sweet sweet irony"?

[Blarghagh]

I haven't seen much of that, Alanis. Hypocrisy, maybe.

[Gfted1]

I got one hand in my pocket, the other one clickin the sign."

[smjjames]

I haven't seen much of that, Alanis. Hypocrisy, maybe.

 

Who's Alanis? Gfted1?

 

Nice French name there.

[Amentep]

I think its a reference to Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic".

 

You know other than the trauma psychologists who I mentioned and their data/fear that trigger warnings might be counter-productive to healing, I don't really understand the issue with trigger warnings such that people have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to them. 

[smjjames]

SJWs going to ridiculous lengths with the trigger warnings may have something to do with that Amentep.

[Malcador]

I think its a reference to Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic".

 

You know other than the trauma psychologists who I mentioned and their data/fear that trigger warnings might be counter-productive to healing, I don't really understand the issue with trigger warnings such that people have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to them.

Me neither. A lot of the time it's just mocking people for not being hard (I suspect empty can phenomenon applies in these cases). But is just the usual outrage over people doing stuff you don't like. Keeps the Daily Mail in business, after all.

 

Does remind me of a conversation at work where they were mocking Bronies, but I asked them how does their obsession with men running around a field, sweating and grabbing each other differ. Funny as GD had some hair up his ass over this, doesn't he always say life is better if people kept their noses out of others' business ?

[Pidesco]

A part of the modern moral standard is a lot about pulling yourself by your bootstraps, being your own person, in control of yourself, and having the power to control your body and everything around it. It's an illusion that is very nice and romantic, partly stepped in the good ol' protestant/puritan work ethic and sexist notions of manhood but it has not a lot of basis in reality. For many people  this belief is essential not only to their worldview but also to their sense of personal worth. Trigger warnings challenge that mindset and so are seen by many as a personal and societal attack.

[213374U]

You know other than the trauma psychologists who I mentioned and their data/fear that trigger warnings might be counter-productive to healing, I don't really understand the issue with trigger warnings such that people have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to them.

 

Yeah. Something along the lines of trigger warnings "encouraging a culture of avoidance", right?

 

While I understand where they're coming from, I'm not sure I'd agree -- it's one thing to encourage facing one's traumas as a form of therapy, and other just encouraging that people randomly happen upon stuff that, as TN suggests, may actually result in a setback in their therapy progress.

 

To me that sounds more like a psychiatrist's social commentary rather than a professional opinion because it doesn't address whether a) such "triggers" exist and b) if "trigger warnings" can actually prevent PTSD episodes. Let alone the larger issue of where to draw the line, of course... The assumption is that if "triggers" exist, and trigger warnings work as advertised, their application runs contrary to the approach of trauma centered cognitive therapy.

 

Heh. I wish I had some psychiatrist acquaintances to pick their brains about this, but all of my friends are more hard sciences people and am not about to shell out 80 bucks for a session with my shrink just to have a casual chat.

[Guard Dog]

@Malc: I just enjoy pointing out absurdity and that particular instance pegs the absurd-o-meter. Shakespere (or someone) wrote Titus Andonicus around 1600. So people have been warching or reading it over four hundred years. Now a Cambrige professor needs to warn the poor little dears and edit parts out so they won't feel bad? Absurd city. I don't really care one way or another to tell the truth other than conversational value. And since we got five forum pages out of it I'd say it had some. It wasn't even Shakespere's best play. King Lear & Henry V have that distinction. My copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare is safe from being edited so I'm good. But when it comes to mocking people who can't even read a four hundred year old work of fiction without needing therapy, guilty as charged. 

 

@Pidesco: How is that illusory? Sure you can't (and shouldn't try) to control everything around you but you DO have full control over how you deal with it. 

[213374U]

@Pidesco: How is that illusory? Sure you can't (and shouldn't try) to control everything around you but you DO have full control over how you deal with it. 

 

And that's kind of the crux. For example, as a former Marine, you're probably aware that it's largely impossible to predict how a particular individual is going to react to the stress of actual combat, regardless of training. Don't you think everyone would react in the exact same calm, collected fashion if it was something that's under one's control?

[Guard Dog]

 

@Pidesco: How is that illusory? Sure you can't (and shouldn't try) to control everything around you but you DO have full control over how you deal with it. 

 

And that's kind of the crux. For example, as a former Marine, you're probably aware that it's largely impossible to predict how a particular individual is going to react to the stress of actual combat, regardless of training. Don't you think everyone would react in the exact same calm, collected fashion if it was something that's under one's control?

 

 

Not a great example because they go to great lengths to teach people how to deal with that. But I do get your point. I can't tell someone how to feel about something.

[Pidesco]

@Malc: I just enjoy pointing out absurdity and that particular instance pegs the absurd-o-meter. Shakespere (or someone) wrote Titus Andonicus around 1600. So people have been warching or reading it over four hundred years. Now a Cambrige professor needs to warn the poor little dears and edit parts out so they won't feel bad? Absurd city. I don't really care one way or another to tell the truth other than conversational value. And since we got five forum pages out of it I'd say it had some. It wasn't even Shakespere's best play. King Lear & Henry V have that distinction. My copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare is safe from being edited so I'm good. But when it comes to mocking people who can't even read a four hundred year old work of fiction without needing therapy, guilty as charged. 

 

@Pidesco: How is that illusory? Sure you can't (and shouldn't try) to control everything around you but you DO have full control over how you deal with it. 

 

No you don't. That's the point. There are plenty of situations where a person's body, brain included, can and will be uncontrollable. It can be anxiety attacks, a chemical imbalance in the brain, arousal due to sexual stimulus, the fight or flight response, Tourette's or a bunch of other things I can't recall right now. Trigger warnings help towards managing some of these.

 

For instance, if someone is a Vietnam vet who suffers from severe PTSD, that person should be aware of anything that might unexpectedly trigger the disorder, like descriptions of the war in a book.

[Amentep]

[Yeah. Something along the lines of trigger warnings "encouraging a culture of avoidance", right?

 

The psychologists I read (and its been a long time but I think at least one was a trauma specialist) believed avoidance led to depression and helplessness.

 

I think at their best or most charitable, the Trigger Warning isn't intended to encourage avoidance, but approaching the material on terms of managed expectations.

 

And that's where I'm a bit torn - not being an expert I can see why the experts would think avoidance is a problem and that trigger warnings could lead to avoidance (albeit in college classes, you can only avoid so far before your grades suffer), but I'm also not sure avoidance is the intent (even if its the outcome - which perhaps points to a need to work on the issue rather than scrap it, perhaps).

 

@Malc: I just enjoy pointing out absurdity and that particular instance pegs the absurd-o-meter. Shakespere (or someone) wrote Titus Andonicus around 1600. So people have been warching or reading it over four hundred years. Now a Cambrige professor needs to warn the poor little dears and edit parts out so they won't feel bad? Absurd city. I don't really care one way or another to tell the truth other than conversational value. And since we got five forum pages out of it I'd say it had some. It wasn't even Shakespere's best play. King Lear & Henry V have that distinction. My copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare is safe from being edited so I'm good. But when it comes to mocking people who can't even read a four hundred year old work of fiction without needing therapy, guilty as charged.

 

Titus may not be his best but it is his goriest (even if Lavinia's rape and mutilation is off stage).

 

That said, I think what you say may be the crux of the issue on this debate - I think - that it'd be fair to say that the intention of trigger warnings isn't that to protect people from experiencing a trauma that would send them to therapy, but to protect people from reliving an already extant trauma that they are still coming to grips with (with therapy or not). 

 

Or to put another way, its not the case of a sheltered man or woman being incensed at encountering a fictional rape and mutilation, but someone with PTSD who may relive their own rape by reading of a fictional one that is intended to be protected.