There is nothing ridiculous about content warnings, and if the content seems innocuous to you then all that means is that the warning is not meant for you. It is not your role, right, or responsibility to decide what should or shouldn't invoke traumatic recollections. I don't give a shit whether trigger warnings may have been use to forewarn things that maybe no one is troubled by (and that could not be proven in any case), the only way to misuse them is to leave them out when necessary or lie about your content, which I have witnessed occur with deliberate and stated intent to harm the severely traumatised. So forgive me if I find I have more empathy and regard for those vulnerable to such issues and even targeted for them than with those who must face the non-inconvenience of encountering a warning they do not need.
:
|
That's funny, I'd say you're, by this definiton, doing that gaslighting thing with Nep.
|
Then I must have done a pretty poor job of describing
gaslighting, because if I'm doing it then so is every school.
:
|
I appreciate honesty, but that means you're critically unprepared for this conversation. This very debate is about who does more of that (generally speaking*), you can't back up what you said through any scientific evidence, yet you're so quick to judge his statements and call it caused by "bad science".
|
I'm not interested in who does more of it. It's bad whenever. I'm not making the case that this side or that side does it more. I'm pointing out common pitfalls in that discussion that the authors of those articles and studies have fallen into, which gets my goat because it's those pitfalls that reinforce absurd stereotypes. I'm quite capable of evaluating papers on their own methodological merits.
:
|
In general*Do I really need to add it every time, because some of you can't understand it's obvious?
|
All generalisations are wrong, and yes, I appreciate that sentence in it's every aspect. I don't want to talk about generalisations either, and yes, you should make your language clear, it's not obvious, because apparently I'm wrong when I assume that you mean what you actually say, so how likely am I to be correct if I assume a bunch of stuff that you have not said?
:
|
I kind of realised we wouldn't get anywhere what with the post BM made defending SJWs on that other thread. Pretty weird because otherwise you're usually such a rational guy.
|
I take it then, that earned no trust in my ability to rationally evaluate other issues? I've spent the past three years quietly exploring issues like these and others. You know I like learning new things, that's why I'm into science, and this was the first time in a long while that I stumbled across something interesting that I was previously completely ignorant of. By which I mean, the experiences of people in my culture who are unlike me in some way. Black, gay, trans, female, hispanic, poor, asian, minority religious, this or that mental illness, physically impaired, you name it. And why would I know any of it? I've never had to.
So I listened. That's basically all I've been able to do, because there is so much, and it didn't take long to get over the hump of "this is silly" to "now I'm fucking mad". And since I'm already of the compassionate, leftist, inclusive sort, valuing that knowledge and those experiences and those causes was already my jam. And given the leanings and sympathies that the people on this forum have always appeared to champion I thought that I would find common cause here too, and it has been a constant source of searing disappointment that apparently it is not.
Where would I start you off somewhere palatable to you? Have you never seen The Daily Show, The Nightly Show, or Last Week Tonight? They have certainly been champions of those causes, hardly faultless but generally very good. I mean seriously, what the fuck do you think social justice is?
