Trigger Warnings

Jestor wrote: And, this is what just happened with Mahogany...

People come here, expecting something....

Mahogany posted something exceptionally stupid (speaking of the links, not the original post) and got called out on it. I don't see how that's the same thing as "shaming". If that's what you're talking about. If it's not, please clarify.

If people's expectation, of this place or of life in general, is that they can say whatever they want without rebuttal or consequence, I'd say that's a pretty unrealistic expectation.

rugadd wrote: Public shaming is not a restriction per se. Only the person whom is responsible for the page can restrict your access to it. If I were in a room full of people shaming me, I would leave.

Why should you have to move for them?

They can rag all they want, I'm not moving for anyone's ridicule. All that does is tell them they "won" and can influence other people with mob tactics which will only encourage them to repeat the attack on someone else. Besides, I try to never do anything that I'll be embarrassed later. The key is to either be moderate in your behaviors or just never get embarrassed about things. haha

ren wrote: Want to draw a line? How about don't use social media in order to not become some kind of idiot zombie who bickers over identifying as a biter or a walker, not to mention the brain-eating cultural misappropriation, or the fight to ban the patronizing label 'partially deceased syndrome' from spoken conversation to medical literature.
Want friends? People who tell you you offend them and warn you you 'might get reported' are not it.

Hmm, avoiding social media to avoid the potential messiness of having to actually deal with other people's crap. Now that's courageous... :dry:

I agree with your assessment that SJWs are a permanent source of eye-rolling, it is incredible how annoying political correctness can get, especially when it is used to trample all over common sense. But trying to escape them by avoiding Facebook is as useful as a monk moving into a monastery to be more Christian.

rugadd wrote: Public shaming is not a restriction per se. Only the person whom is responsible for the page can restrict your access to it. If I were in a room full of people shaming me, I would leave.

And that is how they win. They either get you to comply with them or to leave, in either case they win. I'm with Mindas Arran on this one, I'm not budging just to appease others' sensitivities.

There's nothing wrong with going out of your way to not be an unbearable ass to everyone you meet. There is something wrong with people taking offense to common place things that most other people don't consider offensive.

Simple test. If everyone but you considers it offensive, you're probably wrong. If one person is offended but no else knows why, they're probably wrong. Note, I said probably because EVERYTHING is situational.

There are so many people recently who seem to feel that we either have to say nothing for fear of offending someone or say whatever we please no matter who it hurts and call them weak. Why are those the only options? Why are we still polarizing? There is a middle ground, it just takes more work than either of the other options because it requires learning about people and actually caring about them.

Also, it never hurts to be nicer to people you don't know as well. Figure out where they draw their line and then proceed. Don't like where they draw their line? Don't talk to them.

I’d like to momentarily play devil’s advocate on this issue. When properly utilized, “trigger warnings” are not meant to be about “avoiding offending someone else”. They’re meant to take into consideration individuals who have had traumas. They’re meant to assist those who are going through some sort of mental recovery, be it from said traumas or some other issues, such as eating disorders or addictions or something of the sort. They’re designed as a “hey, this topic is being discussed here” so that the reader knows whether or not they should proceed with reading a post, based on how they’re doing on that particular day. They were never meant to “protect people from offense”….

Without going into detail, I have had traumas… traumas that are very often covered under your traditionally utilized “trigger warning” scenarios (and I don't mean "oh they wouldn't give me that toy"...truly legitimate sorts of traumas...). Often times, I go around reading posts about how others have dealt with similar traumas. Often times, I have written about them myself, and how I manage. And often times, the stresses of the day or week or other outside influences have built up to the level where, reading a post which talks about that trauma would inadvertently likely cause a reliving of that trauma that, at that moment in time, I am not emotionally equipped to deal with. And the fact of the matter is that in today’s internet based society, it is very probable that on a day when I should be letting the past stay in the past, I will inadvertently stumble across something that will help bring the past to the future. With such “warnings”, I have the forewarning to stop and leave the site before that happens, because in some cases, the author goes into detail so rapidly at the very beginning of the post that there is no subtle warning as to what is coming. I’ve had that happen before, and I’ve seen it happen to others. While certainly not a “trigger warning” scenario, just yesterday I navigated to a site which contained illegal information that I had no desire to be seeing, certainly not on my cell of all things, and had no forewarning would be there.

Now with that said, in my experience, those out there who have these pasts, where “trigger warnings” are appreciated, it is seldom expected. We know what we’re getting into when we go surfing with big wide blue interwebs. And that said we still highly appreciate when those warnings are made available early on. It is not a sign of being overly sensitive to offending another. It is a sign that you are being empathetic/sympathetic to the traumas of those around you. You’re being a human being. No one in their right mind would go up to someone whom they knew to have been recently raped and share an article vividly detailing the rape of another. Or assaulted. Or abused. Or what have you. It’s utilizing the same courtesy that you would offer that person in life, online where there’s a post about everything and even the best web surfer can be caught unawares.

We highly appreciate your sensitivity to the troubles that we have to deal with on a near daily basis. We are grateful when you take the time to write in that single sentence at the beginning of your post: “This post details my [insert trauma here].” It’s a courtesy, nothing more, and we know that. Thank you for being an empathetic/sympathetic individual who takes the time to show others courtesy. That is what "trigger warnings" are about...

This is why I sometimes reply ironically with, "Triggered!" It has become so commonplace that people use it for things they just want to avoid, rather than what will trigger them into an uncontrollable reaction. People have actual mental/emotional triggers; I get that. What I don't get is how people can go through life avoiding new experiences because it may change something within. Maybe I'm just oversimplifying, here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Mindas Arran wrote:

Jestor wrote: And, this is what just happened with Mahogany...

People come here, expecting something....

Mahogany posted something exceptionally stupid (speaking of the links, not the original post) and got called out on it. I don't see how that's the same thing as "shaming". If that's what you're talking about. If it's not, please clarify.

If people's expectation, of this place or of life in general, is that they can say whatever they want without rebuttal or consequence, I'd say that's a pretty unrealistic expectation.

We all do what we can to support our stances/beliefs [convictions?], including (in this case) the linking of supporting 'information'....

My point was, that although we (totjo and guests) may have been able to handle it better, so shoulda/coulda Mahogany...

They (the more easily offended folks, although some guests think TOTJO members fall into that category occasionally, lol) come here, expecting soft-spoken people (which some are, but, maybe half?), who try to never intentionally offend (which most try to NOT, I think), and who are open to just about anything (which we are, but, that doesnt mean that we dont need some 'soak time'....

People come here expecting a 'monastery', and get more a 'Debate Club Competition", lol...

WARNING: Possibly unpopular opinion coming

The web is meant to be a medium that triggers reactions. It is supposed to be the Wild Wild West of communication. That is the entire point of net neutrality (the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites). The internet isn't meant to be a safe space.

Social networks are supposed to be social. They are a place for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to get on a soap box and shout their opinions. That's what makes them such an effective tool for SJWs. People feel like they have a voice. Those voices are not meant to be censored because they might hurt someone else's feelings or trigger emotional trauma.

Freedom of Speech is powerful because it allows for the expression of uncomfortable and/or dissenting opinions. It protects my right to say things that will make you uncomfortable. If my words trigger an undesirable reaction from you, I can then decide if I need to alter my words or continue making you uncomfortable. It's my choice to decide how I continue talking, even if I decide to continue being a hateful and inconsiderate prick, and it's your choice to decide if you will continue to listen.

I agree that trigger warnings show compassion for others and can be very helpful, but they are not required and never should be. I might appreciate the warning, but I'm not entitled to it. It is the individual communicators's responsibility to know the risk they are taking when they enter the conversation. I don't want to see the day that my pants have to have a warning label saying "zipper may harm your genitals".

Compassion, yet Reason. My feelings are summed up pretty well by this quote.

“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.” -George Carlin

I look at it as a personal decision on being sensitive to a persons triggers. I post things (not memes) all the time that i hope to be humorous. Before releasing it i make sure the point im making is clear and if it is even worth sharing. I am very mindful of how i word things because i really dont want to offend someone. Yep, you can really find humor in any situation. But, you have the decision to choose what you want people to laugh at. For me, some laughs i can do without. It may be really funny. But, i dont want to be the source for that type of humor. Let someone else post it or say it.

Also, people do go overboard with their offenses, but, i cant say someone should not be offended. If they are...I'll take a look at what i said. See if i can understand their point of view and if I can see the offence, i may reword it or not say it again. But, if I'm completely satisfied with my words, message and the person being offended, then that's a decision and awareness that i am comfortable standing by.

If i am offended (and that happens. Even on this site) i look inside myself to see why i feel offended. And if the feeling stays, i look at the source of the statement (who said it). If the source is a person that is known for causing Khaos...i ignore it. But, if i feel that the source will benefit from my opinion, i will share it.

Manu wrote:

ren wrote: Want to draw a line? How about don't use social media in order to not become some kind of idiot zombie who bickers over identifying as a biter or a walker, not to mention the brain-eating cultural misappropriation, or the fight to ban the patronizing label 'partially deceased syndrome' from spoken conversation to medical literature.
Want friends? People who tell you you offend them and warn you you 'might get reported' are not it.

Hmm, avoiding social media to avoid the potential messiness of having to actually deal with other people's crap. Now that's courageous... :dry:

I agree with your assessment that SJWs are a permanent source of eye-rolling, it is incredible how annoying political correctness can get, especially when it is used to trample all over common sense. But trying to escape them by avoiding Facebook is as useful as a monk moving into a monastery to be more Christian.

Using facebook is not courageous. It is a waste of time. Not using it is not being a monk or living in a monastery, it is dealing with virtual nonsense the only way it can be successfully done: by not taking part in it.

Regardless of your opinions of social media "white knights", my experience with people on both sides of the actual/attention line is that many people who actually have PTSD et al. know their limits and avoid the problem rather than go full diva.
In a place like this, the crass humor that tends to stereotypically "trigger" others isn't present, so dank memes are a non-issue.
The truth isn't always pretty: if you have paper skin, you ought to just avoid the entire internet, or life in general. Shit happens.
At the same time, a little civility and giving others the benefit of the doubt goes a long ways.
TOTJO shouldn't be a place where anyone can wallow in their own preconceptions or ignorance, but rather be challenged.