Liberals vs. the PC left

[Lucavi]

The fuck is a trigger word?

Is that like, a "I'm literally going to strangle you in public because you said that!" word, or a "I'm going to freeze up, piss my pants on the spot and collapse into a heap in fear" word?

Honest question. I mean shit, if its what I think it is, then every Black male in the nation called "boy" or "nigger" by a white guy has them both as trigger words, and for the former meaning.

[Aksannyi]

Gred, I'm about ten seconds from passing out so I'd like to respond to this in further depth tomorrow, but just two things:

Re: Triggers - if it's triggering to the point where someone has a legitimate terrible reaction like a panic attack, then I feel like we need to be more sensitive, if it's triggering in the way I mentioned (extreme anger at a phrase or way of speaking) then I don't, necessarily, though yes, navigating the world is something people have to learn. But it isn't like you're walking down the street regularly and hear people talking about rape, do you? I mean a lot of truly triggering topics aren't exactly things that we talk about often.

And this:

I think the problem is when we start modifying normal course of behavior because we are afraid of some unindentified unknown person potentially being offended.

And I am inclined to agree with this, hence why I said I don't support everyone walking around on eggshells all of the time, obviously within reason (not using obvious slurs). Because you can't know what every person from every culture and every belief set is going to find offensive, it's just not possible. So I think we agree on that.

I will respond to this more in depth when I get up, you raised some really interesting questions and I just don't want to give them half-assed attention while I'm so tired. XD

[Aksannyi]

The fuck is a trigger word?

Is that like, a "I'm literally going to strangle you in public because you said that!" word, or a "I'm going to freeze up, piss my pants on the spot and collapse into a heap in fear" word?

Honest question. I mean shit, if its what I think it is, then every Black male in the nation called "boy" or "nigger" by a white guy has them both as trigger words, and for the former meaning.

Generally something that would send you into an anxiety attack or cause someone to relive some sort of prior trauma, like some woman said that hearing "You know you want it," from "Blurred Lines" triggered memory of their rape since those are actual words their rapist used.

[Lucavi]

People actually do that? Without being brainwashed by someone beforehand? Huh.

I figured it was just a word that seriously pisses them off. Interesting. Never seen a "trigger word" in real life yet.

[Gredival]

People actually do that? Without being brainwashed by someone beforehand? Huh.

I figured it was just a word that seriously pisses them off. Interesting. Never seen a "trigger word" in real life yet.

I believe is (or is at least similar to) PTSD in that certain stimuli "triggers" an episode where the victim re-lives the trauma.

If you ever read something from an extremely PC sensitive site about sexual assault, you will see a big bold warning before the text of the article like "TRIGGER WARNINGS: SEXUAL ASSAULT, RAPE" etc.

[Lucavi]

That's genuinely interesting. Is that such a prevalent thing, however, where it should be seriously considered to supersede the right to free speech?

Too much blood has been spilled, in my opinion, to grant protections from a so-called trigger word trumping free speech.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I thought this was a particularly compelling example of a trigger.



Happens at 2:00. Obviously this is PTSD from combat, but PTSD isn't exclusive to combat.

[Lucavi]

Very interesting. Thank you for that link.

[Gredival]

That's genuinely interesting. Is that such a prevalent thing, however, where it should be seriously considered to supersede the right to free speech?

Legally, no way. The incidence of trauma, and the prevalence of severe enough cases of PTSD where mere speech can create an episode, are not reasonably foreseeable.

The reason it's an issue is that there's a push to "normalize" trigger warnings as standard. It's become a symbolic hill to die on as it represents where people believe the balance should be between accommodation of the vulnerable vs. unrestricted free speech. The idea that trigger warnings should be standard is an affirmative confirmation that society owes it to victims to proactively accommodate them.

[Tyrath]

This bit basically sums up the article for me

These ideas have more than theoretical power. Last March at University of California–Santa Barbara, in, ironically, a “free-speech zone,” a 16-year-old anti-abortion protester named Thrin Short and her 21-year-old sister Joan displayed a sign arrayed with graphic images of aborted fetuses. They caught the attention of Mireille Miller-Young, a professor of feminist studies. Miller-Young, angered by the sign, demanded that they take it down. When they refused, Miller-Young snatched the sign, took it back to her office to destroy it, and shoved one of the Short sisters on the way.

Speaking to police after the altercation, Miller-Young told them that the images of the fetuses had “triggered” her and violated her “personal right to go to work and not be in harm.” A Facebook group called “UCSB Microaggressions” declared themselves “in solidarity” with Miller-Young and urged the campus “to provide as much support as possible.”

By the prevailing standards of the American criminal-justice system, Miller-Young had engaged in vandalism, battery, and robbery. By the logic of the p.c. movement, she was the victim of a trigger and had acted in the righteous cause of social justice. Her colleagues across the country wrote letters to the sentencing judge pleading for leniency. Jennifer Morgan, an NYU professor, blamed the anti-­abortion protesters for instigating the confrontation through their exercise of free speech. “Miller-Young’s actions should be mitigated both by her history as an educator as well as by her conviction that the [anti-abortion] images were an assault on her students,” Morgan wrote. Again, the mere expression of opposing ideas, in the form of a poster, is presented as a threatening act.

Anyone who supports free speech should agree that the Short sisters should be able to express their views just as much as anyone else. You may not agree with their views, I certainly don't, but that doesn't mean that you can just shut down their right to express them. Their idea is not a threatening act. If their ideas trigger you, that onus is on you and not on them. The fact that so many people wrote in defense of the woman who attacked them blows my mind.

[Lucavi]

The reason it's an issue is that there's a push to "normalize" trigger warnings as standard. It's become a symbolic hill to die on as it represents where people believe the balance should be between accommodation of the vulnerable vs. unrestricted free speech. The idea that trigger warnings should be standard is an affirmative confirmation that society owes it to victims to proactively accommodate them.

As a courtesy? Sure. As a law, punishable by something? No.

[thetruepandagod]

These ideas have more than theoretical power. Last March at University of California–Santa Barbara, in, ironically, a “free-speech zone,”

My town never disappoints.

[test123]

The mods on BG is from the PC left crowd. I've got a ton of infractions just for stating that blacks have lower IQ then whites, and suggesting that transgender people have a mental disorder.

[thetruepandagod]

The mods on BG is from the PC left crowd. I've got a ton of infractions just for stating that blacks have lower IQ then whites, and suggesting that transgender people have a mental disorder.

[Gredival]

The mods on BG is from the PC left crowd. I've got a ton of infractions just for stating that blacks have lower IQ then whites, and suggesting that transgender people have a mental disorder.

[Blubbartron]

The mods on BG is from the PC left crowd. I've got a ton of infractions just for stating that blacks have lower IQ then whites, and suggesting that transgender people have a mental disorder.

Perhaps if you supported your opinion with any kind of evidence, you'd be less likely to get infractions.

As it stands, there is evidence to suggest that there are differences in IQ between populations (that Brainwash series on youtube has a good video exploring biological differences between races, including measures of intelligence), however, I've never seen anything that suggests that trans people have a mental disorder. If you're referring to gender dysphoria, that's a disorder as a result of not being able to express yourself as you are. Basically what could be termed "in the closet" syndrome.

More on topic, I think this is something that's best explained by the fact that political ideology is not a simple 1D range - it's a 2D plane. Going left and right you have liberal and conservative, but up and down you have authoritarian and libertarian. The problem we've been seeing recently is the rise of authoritarian thinking. That's something that isn't limited to liberals, either. Conservatives were becoming increasingly authoritarian around 40-50 years ago as the religious right took over the Republican party (religion being authoritarian in and of itself).

There's an element to this that is somewhat reactive; there is no good way to compete or argue with authoritarian thinking that isn't inherently authoritarian itself. If you try to argue with an authoritarian person from a libertarian perspective, you're likely to get demolished (in terms of how many 3rd party individuals you would convince), even if you're making a legitimately better argument. That's just a result of human nature - most people want to follow a strong leader, and they're not strong leaders (independent in thought/action) themselves. Authoritarian thinkers have a fervency in belief that makes them argue in a more convincing way, even though it's not necessarily a more rational/supported argument.

Authoritarian thinking is dangerous because it contributes to the belief that you have figured out what's "best", and if you KNOW, unequivocally, what's best, it lets you justify unimaginable horrors to see it achieved. This is why authoritarian feminists feel completely justified to do the things they do (e.g. the video of feminists shutting down an MRA meeting by blowing sirens and shit outside of the room in the hall, protesting outside of an audience hall to harass people trying to get in).

[Gredival]

Perhaps if you supported your opinion with any kind of evidence, you'd be less likely to get infractions.

As it stands, there is evidence to suggest that there are differences in IQ between populations (that Brainwash series on youtube has a good video exploring biological differences between races, including measures of intelligence), however, I've never seen anything that suggests that trans people have a mental disorder. If you're referring to gender dysphoria, that's a disorder as a result of not being able to express yourself as you are. Basically what could be termed "in the closet" syndrome.

Don't feed the troll.

[Yabby]

I'm sure there have been studies on this, but what happens when you over expose someone with a "Trigger word" to it frequently?

Using an example above, "You know you want it". What happens if you sit that person in a room, and say that over and over? There has to be a point in which a trigger word can be beat down by repetition.

[Blubbartron]

I'm sure there have been studies on this, but what happens when you over expose someone with a "Trigger word" to it frequently?

Using an example above, "You know you want it". What happens if you sit that person in a room, and say that over and over? There has to be a point in which a trigger word can be beat down by repetition.

Google "exposure therapy". It does work. It's trickier than you might think, and progress can be slow, but it is possible to desensitize people without causing them to have a nervous breakdown.

[Restrat]

One thing I don't get about these types of arguments is that it seems people have transformed "I can say anything I want without being arrested or shut down by the government" to "I can say anything I want and there can be no consequences from anyone." Not talking about Charlie Hebdo, but like the newspaper article mentioned in the beginning of the piece in the OP. You can say whatever you want... but your boss isn't allowed to fire you if it hurts the paper? You can say whatever you want.... but the professor who is teaching and created the class isn't allowed to teach the way they want, they have to cater towards your views?