Political Ocean's 11

[ShadySands]

A Texas town is offering residents relief grants for damage sustained by Hurricane Harvey — but applicants must first promise not to boycott Israel.

 

Also, this

 

Federal judge refuses to erase Joe Arpaio’s conviction despite Trump pardon

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping,” Bolton wrote in the decision. “To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt.”

 

The president issued the pardon, and Arpaio was spared “from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,” the judge wrote. “It did not, however, ‘revise the historical facts’ of this case.”

Edited October 20, 2017 by ShadySands

[injurai]

Im trying to coin a new phrase and I want some input. Since we dont even have to have actually experienced something to then later become triggered by it, what rolls off the tongue better; TRIGGERED by proxy or TRIGGERED adjacent?

 

@Ben No.3: Yep, imo, Ecological collapse will be mankind's final undoing. Your great-grandchildren will stave to death long before climate issues have chance to kill them.  

 

Triggered by projection, or preferably projectile triggering.

[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.

[injurai]

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.

[Malcador]

 

A Texas town is offering residents relief grants for damage sustained by Hurricane Harvey — but applicants must first promise not to boycott Israel.

 

Also, this

 

Federal judge refuses to erase Joe Arpaio’s conviction despite Trump pardon

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping,” Bolton wrote in the decision. “To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt.”

 

The president issued the pardon, and Arpaio was spared “from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,” the judge wrote. “It did not, however, ‘revise the historical facts’ of this case.”

Pretty BS law by the state as well, no state contract if you boycott Israel.

[Malcador]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/politics/wp/2017/10/20/the-white-house-is-increasingly-and-worryingly-using-the-military-as-a-shield-against-criticism/

 

Bit late to be worried about worshipping some one in uniform. Disappointed that no one pressed Sanders on that remark, as well.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Malcador

[Gfted1]

Can someone point out the TRIGGER warning? I'm stuck.

 

[Guard Dog]

Students crash a College Republican and demanded the group be disbanded and the members expelled from the University of California at Santa Cruz. Apparently they were chanting "no free speech for facists" and one of them was quotes as saying "dialogue is violence". Apparently differing political opinions are not to be tolerated at Cal.

 

I love irony. It's my favorite form of humor. But when the people comitting it are too stupid to see it it does lose some of it's flavor.

 

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9986 

[smjjames]

Students crash a College Republican and demanded the group be disbanded and the members expelled from the University of California at Santa Cruz. Apparently they were chanting "no free speech for facists" and one of them was quotes as saying "dialogue is violence". Apparently differing political opinions are not to be tolerated at Cal.

 

I love irony. It's my favorite form of humor. But when the people comitting it are too stupid to see it it does lose some of it's flavor.

 

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9986

 

They should listen to themselves, "Dialogue is violence", come on. It's these kinds of idiots that make liberals look bad.

 

 

 

Students crash a College Republican and demanded the group be disbanded and the members expelled from the University of California at Santa Cruz. Apparently they were chanting "no free speech for facists" and one of them was quotes as saying "dialogue is violence". Apparently differing political opinions are not to be tolerated at Cal.

 

I love irony. It's my favorite form of humor. But when the people comitting it are too stupid to see it it does lose some of it's flavor.

 

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9986

well what did the republicans talk about? I mean the right to demonstrate is just as sacred as the right to free speech; and perhaps the repubs did say something worth protesting against.

 

 

Republican stuff probably? I'm wondering too and wouldn't be surprised if it was something mundane or one of the usual conservative hot topics.

[Guard Dog]

 

Students crash a College Republican and demanded the group be disbanded and the members expelled from the University of California at Santa Cruz. Apparently they were chanting "no free speech for facists" and one of them was quotes as saying "dialogue is violence". Apparently differing political opinions are not to be tolerated at Cal.

 

I love irony. It's my favorite form of humor. But when the people comitting it are too stupid to see it it does lose some of it's flavor.

 

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9986

well what did the republicans talk about? I mean the right to demonstrate is just as sacred as the right to free speech; and perhaps the repubs did say something worth protesting against.

 

 

From what I read it was a club meeting. Crashing it is as stupid as crashing the chess club because you hate chess. 

[Hurlshort]

Santa Cruz is filled with crazy liberals, news at 11.

[Guard Dog]

It's actually sad that the very place that gave birth to the modern free speech movement (as if they didn't already have it) is now the epicenter of the push for it's abolition. 

[Guard Dog]

Slate seems to think Americans should be limited to owning just two firearms: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/a_two_guns_per_person_limit_would_protect_americans_lives_and_liberty.html

 

There is an idea. In fact let's apply it to other rights too. You can only vote twice. Go to church twice. Arrested a third time? To bad buddy, your a$$ is ours now. Oh your insurance company f----d you? Too bad you've already filed your lifetime maximum of two lawsuits. Want to attend a protest? Sucks to be you because you attended two already. What? You employer cut your pay below minimum wage and eliminated your benefits and makes you work in an unsafe way? We'd love to help you but this is your third job. We only protect you for two.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Do you go looking for op-eds to get triggered by?

[injurai]

Can someone point out the TRIGGER warning? I'm stuck.

 

 

Calories reinforce oppressive thermodynamics, socio-normative use of English. A reminder that enjoyment of such treats should be enjoyed from a place of an active and healthy lifestyle.

 

But I think the point is their are warnings all around you, you just have to pay attention to them. Some people ignore the warnings they don't like while complaining about the ones that aren't there.

[Guard Dog]

Do you go looking for op-eds to get triggered by?

 

No someone usually e-mails them to me.

[Malcador]

Do you go looking for op-eds to get triggered by?

This thread will be like the Daily Mail soon

[Gfted1]

But I think the point is their are warnings all around you...

Yep, absolutely. But hose "warnings" tend to be "general information about the product" that applies to 100% of users. Not some specific thing, that may or may not TRIGGER some mental trauma, that affects less than 1% of its users.

[Blarghagh]

So allergy information should be removed then? May contain traces of nuts only triggers some swelling in 1% of its users. I mean jeeze, they don't even contain nuts most of the time.

[Hurlshort]

That's a pretty good point. Those nut allergy kids drive me...um...nuts. My kid's school is always sending home flyers asking us not to send anything with nuts for lunch. My kid lives off peanut butter sandwiches, how about you just make sure your fragile kid stays away from mine at lunch?

[redneckdevil]

I think there's a subtle difference between a warning for those that will cause physical harm to someone and a warning for those that MAY feel uncomfortable.

Physical harm there is more sympathy because of physical evidence of the harm. The trigger warnings have less sympathy because even though mental trauma is a real thing, mental trauma was always taught to me and many others that except severe cases, it's more of a barrier to overcome. It's something that people may accept, but to constantly strive to overcome because they do have consequences socially and physically.

The main opposition I believe is that it's not of making people uncomfortable, it's the mentality to not strive to overcome and the consequences shouldn't be on the person but instead the consequences lay on everyone else in that they are forced to deal with you in the context of acceptance in that it will never change.

[smjjames]

Plus the fact that some people (nobody on this forum) take the trigger stuff to ridiculous levels, which gives the whole idea a bad name when it's abused like that.

[Malcador]

Seems the only damage is winding up people online, for some reason

[Blarghagh]

That's true.

 

I think there's a subtle difference between a warning for those that will cause physical harm to someone and a warning for those that MAY feel uncomfortable.
Physical harm there is more sympathy because of physical evidence of the harm. The trigger warnings have less sympathy because even though mental trauma is a real thing, mental trauma was always taught to me and many others that except severe cases, it's more of a barrier to overcome. It's something that people may accept, but to constantly strive to overcome because they do have consequences socially and physically.
The main opposition I believe is that it's not of making people uncomfortable, it's the mentality to not strive to overcome and the consequences shouldn't be on the person but instead the consequences lay on everyone else in that they are forced to deal with you in the context of acceptance in that it will never change.

 

The problem is that all these views are outdated as hell. They're finding most traumas and mental disorders have physical effects and marks in the brain, for one. The assumption that someone with mental problems is capable of making that choice and being in control is completely faulty. Many of them WANT to but can't. Here's why this subject makes me pissy:

 

My wife is diagnosed by mental health professionals as having PTSD and she's currently discouraged from watching things that could trigger her because she gets PTSD flashbacks where she mentally regresses to the exact moment she was abused as a child and the rest of her brain literally shuts down. She simply CANNOT make any reasonable choices at this time. One time she nearly jumped out a four-story window because of a flight response to what was essentially a repeating lifelike hallucination after some all-ages cop show had a sudden rape scene and no disclaimer. We're working with therapies such as EMDR to solve this, but it's not her CHOICE. What's worse, every time this happens it's essentially several steps back in her MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED TREATMENT and half the time, there's no way to avoid it.

 

Trigger warnings would be extremely helpful in her recovery to get her to that point. But no, because some empathy-deprived **** on the internet are mad at a bunch of overdramatic misandrist **** on the internet, something that is as simple as a short freaking "may contain traces of rape" message becomes this huge deal to everyone because ****ing internet. Because mental trauma is a good enough reason to not go to jail if you killed someone, but it's not enough of a reason to put everyone through a bit of text they can safely ignore and doesn't even ****ing affect them in the slightest. To that I say, **** those people. And if they can't deal with that bit of text without getting triggered, maybe they shouldn't be the one throwing stones.

[redneckdevil]

That's true.

 

I think there's a subtle difference between a warning for those that will cause physical harm to someone and a warning for those that MAY feel uncomfortable.

Physical harm there is more sympathy because of physical evidence of the harm. The trigger warnings have less sympathy because even though mental trauma is a real thing, mental trauma was always taught to me and many others that except severe cases, it's more of a barrier to overcome. It's something that people may accept, but to constantly strive to overcome because they do have consequences socially and physically.

The main opposition I believe is that it's not of making people uncomfortable, it's the mentality to not strive to overcome and the consequences shouldn't be on the person but instead the consequences lay on everyone else in that they are forced to deal with you in the context of acceptance in that it will never change.

 

The problem is that all these views are outdated as hell. They're finding most traumas and mental disorders have physical effects and marks in the brain, for one. The assumption that someone with mental problems is capable of making that choice and being in control is completely faulty. Many of them WANT to but can't. Here's why this subject makes me pissy:

 

My wife is diagnosed by mental health professionals as having PTSD and she's currently discouraged from watching things that could trigger her because she gets PTSD flashbacks where she mentally regresses to the exact moment she was abused as a child and the rest of her brain literally shuts down. She simply CANNOT make any reasonable choices at this time. One time she nearly jumped out a four-story window because of a flight response to what was essentially a repeating lifelike hallucination after some all-ages cop show had a sudden rape scene and no disclaimer. We're working with therapies such as EMDR to solve this, but it's not her CHOICE. What's worse, every time this happens it's essentially several steps back in her MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED TREATMENT and half the time, there's no way to avoid it.

 

Trigger warnings would be extremely helpful in her recovery to get her to that point. But no, because some empathy-deprived **** on the internet are mad at a bunch of overdramatic misandrist **** on the internet, something that is as simple as a short freaking "may contain traces of rape" message becomes this huge deal to everyone because ****ing internet. Because mental trauma is a good enough reason to not go to jail if you killed someone, but it's not enough of a reason to put everyone through a bit of text they can safely ignore and doesn't even ****ing affect them in the slightest. To that I say, **** those people. And if they can't deal with that bit of text without getting triggered, maybe they shouldn't be the one throwing stones.

i dont believe it is outdated at all.  i even stated "EXCEPT severe cases".  i even put down that it effects socially and PHYSICALLY.  My heart goes out to ur wife, but what i wrote doesnt apply to her at all.

I'm talking about the practice of treating someone who is JUST uncomfortable and then treating them AS IF they are in the same condition that your wife is in.  Teaching its okay to just flip out and throw a tantrum in public WITHOUT any restraint instead of the lessons taughted by experiencing and confronting these problems/differences/morally different WHILE holding oneself to a certain standard because unless its something terrible, just completely by passing it is what i am talking about.

I am not "triggered" by trigger warnings, they a much lower bar version of movie warnings/restrictions.  I see one, i will do like i do the others. skip it.  no skin off my back, they whatever. the same people who have "do not wash baby in washing machine" labels.  Its the people you see that are using these "triggers" when its not for them and us being okay and allowing that.  Its like handicap places, yes we realize and accept that some people have it harder than others  THATS why we give them the best spot to make it easier on them.  Then the people who are like "mmmm thats a areally good spot, i wanna be "handicap" to and get a sticker."  We used to get riled up seeing someone who wasn't handicapped park into handicap but got a sticker for the spot.  just like the fat and lazy people who ride around in the fat mobiles at stores that are for the people who are really old or crippled should be riding.  Its just producing more and more fat lazy people when we can stop and make people walk when they can walk.  its healthy and usually the only type of excercize most people get.

Allowing them who dont need it, just weakens them and effects us because we have to deal with the consequences of allowing them to. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by redneckdevil