Topic: Are trigger warnings just a front for censorship?
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago#42,509
Its the thought police trying to demonize subjects they deem offensive. Instead of trigger warnings we should just get back to good old fashioned book burnings by those that hold the moral high ground.
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,191
Yes it is.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 49 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,202
"Trigger warnings" were originally used to warn people with PTSD of content that could potentially trigger an episode, such as a news article containing graphic war images. Then the SJWs hijacked it and turned it into the bullshit that it is today, and even claim to have PTSD from being bullied on the internet.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,225
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Or being told to lose weight or being called the wrong pronouns
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,227
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
As much as I hate bullies, I think some of these people should have been bullied more in high school. They need thicker skin.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 52 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,230
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,233
"harden the fuck up, Timmy" -- an Australian saying
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,239
I agree they've gone too far and become trivialised. Now they've become a bit of a joke. Though at least there's still a good intention behind them, generally.
@564,227 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4) @564,230 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Social exclusion and emotional stress isn't really good for everybody.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,263
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I don't believe that it's usually based on good intentions. I think that it's a way to silence critics while also keeping that feeling of self righteous political correctness.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,265
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Say what you will about the SJWs, but generally they do place great importance on disadvantaged groups. Sure, they're arguably wrong in how they go about it, but I think it's pretty clear that most view what they're doing as helpful to said groups. And it's not like a person couldn't be smug and also think that they're doing something helpful.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,269
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
They think that you can only be disadvantaged if you're nonwhite or noncis. Seriously look up the things that they put trigger warnings on and tell me if it seems to come from a place of love.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,271
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,272
@564,269 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
I know, their mindset can be very skewed. But, overall, they're still aiming to do something helpful to traumatised people.
And yes, I've seen triggers warnings before. Usually it's just really "generic" things like saying they'll be discussing rape or racism. Not really aggressive or exclusionary.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,273
kook !!mCVqftDha double-posted this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,276
@564,272 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Triggers for dieting talk, blood, genitals, illnesses etc. It makes me think that you dont hang around those areas, because its almost never general.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,277
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Well no, that's a good example of things going too far. But they're not all like that.
Maybe you don't see the less extreme ones quite enough?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,279
@564,272 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
imho many swj try to "fight for others" becuase i see a lot of shit where M'Lady fedora wearers start saying shit like, "that's offensive to X group, mostly women."
like, "if i was a woman this online community would drive me away because sexism," or whatever. and what i don't ever see are women asking for people to help them fight a fight. it's just as sexist and chavanistic and weird to try and ''tell women what offends them and that they should be offended or need to fight a battle."
i just see a lot of folks trying to be someone else's warrior for social justice and it's fucking hypocritical as fuck going around making issues of other people's problems. it's just as "oppressive" as chavanism
example: kook is a woman that disagrees with the sjw movement, but if she were to voice that opinion to sjws she's be crucified and called a gender traitor or whatever.
she's actually part of the group sjws look to "campaign for" but her actual opinion doesn't matter. what matters is what sjws SAY matters, even if it means forcing women to comply.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,280
@previous (squeegee)
All the m’lady fedora holders I see are Men’s Rights Activists.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,282
@previous (L)
who ever the fuck they are they are fucking equally socially retarded.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,283
@564,279 (squeegee)
Of course. All extreme views are like that. Anyone who doesn't agree has brainwashed or blinded by the opposing side.
Regardless, SJWs still have this conception of an oppressed person that they're campaigning for. I mostly just think it's sad how something that's nominally a good cause can go so wrong. But then, zealots will do that to anything.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,284
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,286
@564,283 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
even the kkk started out as nonextreme but once your movement adopts an ideaology of exclusivity and hate and exclusion you can't put the breaks on it.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,288
@564,283 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx) > zealots will do that to everything
ding ding ding!
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,289
oh! also i think the SJW movement is a manifestation of the "gay agenda" that really never existed. finally conservatives willed the gay agenda into existence.
it's like gays said, "you want a crazy extreme agenda to point to? okay, here you go." and now it's an all encompasing anti-white male movement at its core.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,324
after reading her comments on "mansplaining" i've decided that this person has some real big hangups about men. People were simply giving her stuff like stats or "researched facts" and she called it "mansplaining opinion," which is funny. she was also just assuming these people with male avatars or cartoon male avatars were actually men, as if women never choose avatars that aren't pink unicorns and chocolate. what i think is going on, at least in the case of Brianna Wu, is that she hates that she's actually a man, and to try and distance her from them she's lambasting all of them as being fundamentally different from her. i think, honestly, that it's her defense mechanism and way to cope with being transgendered.
and of course all the lies about harassment and lies about reports and lies about being "ignored" were all a way for this person to make her delusional reality a real reality.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 8 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,406
no you fucking tard
trigger warnings arent STOPPING you from reading content, it's warning you about it, almost like warnings do. shocking, huh.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#564,413
@previous (N)
We know. But people use their triggers to silence dissenting views.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#564,626
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Or otherwise discredit them.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#564,635