Political Ocean's 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

[Malcador]

Not triggered, but go off on some yarn about how it weakens the species.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I believe Hurlshot has said he can't take anything with kids getting killed in it, perhaps I'm giving Mister Unicorn-dancing-on-a-Rainbow too much credit but I don't see how giving him a warning that violence against children happens in a movie makes him the equivalent of a fatass. It's not a big deal and will at most take 30 seconds out of your time, and if you can write long replies on an obscure video game forum you can sit through a 30 second viewer discretion warning.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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.

 

we'll make a proper overdramatic misandrist **** out of you someday, you have promise

[redneckdevil]

Does it look like we will be fighting north Korea soon?

[HoonDing]

huh? the Taliban aren't even beaten yet

[Guard Dog]

Nah, this NK thing will blow over. 

[Fighter]

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.

 

Do you think trigger warnings can be narrowed down enough? Because the lists of things that require trigger warnings that come out of the community that typically pushes for them are long and vaguely defined and derived often using capricious and frivolous interpretations. For example rape is rape, but a "trace of rape" can be lots of things to lots of people. And to comb through something for any traces that may trigger somebody doesn't sound like a realistic task. Can you really track all aspects that may remind someone out there of something they've experienced?

 

It seems like practically speaking you can only cover the big things that are already covered by most content warnings like violence, sexual violence, etc. And for the rest content has to be checked by someone for a specific individual and their specific case.

[213374U]

snip snap

Call me crazy, but how the hell is a cop show with depictions of rape in any way "all-ages"?

 

It's a tangential issue, but I'm thinking that someone failed at their job there. I'm not against a "viewers discretion advised: contains depictions of XYZ" notice, but if something like that got an "all-ages" rating, it's not much of a stretch that they would have failed to add any such disclaimer as well. And conversely, I have trouble imagining how a show with a fictional rape depictions disclaimer may get an "all-ages" rating.

 

And yeah, the salient point here is the larger social stigma facing people with mental health problems. Hell even the phrase "mental problems" sounds somewhat dirty (cf. endocrine problems, cardiovascular problems, etc...).

Edited October 23, 2017 by 213374U

[Guard Dog]

Somehow my sarcasm and derision of the poor little dears being unable to read Titus Andronicus without needing therapy morphed into being against safety warnings and movie ratings huh? You never know where the conversational road will go around here. But the ride is entertaining. 

[Gfted1]

Hold up guys, gotta get my TRIGGER list out for the day so I can cover every possible eventuality that I, or anyone else on the planet, may or may not have issues with:

 

[Malcador]

You need to try a different joke.