I am a pretty serious lefty, but I'm utterly flummoxed as to how some of my fellow political travelers can suggest with straight faces that everything needs to be an "emotional safe place" for them, but white Americans need to have a long, serious, uncomfortable look at their unknowing contributions to systemic racism and inequality. You really can't make the latter happen if you insist on the former.
Get the sand out of your vag (Seinfeld says colleges too PC)
- Thread starter Mathias
- Start date
Make it the word "Triggered" vertically, but with the "T" enlarged and the "r" hooked to form the butt and trigger of a semiautomatic pistol, with the top of the "d" as the muzzle sight.
--Patrick
This needs to be read by far more people IMO.
Neil Gaiman's recently released short story collection is titled Trigger Warnings. The introduction explains the reason for the title is because he figures someone's going to try putting such warnings on his books and he wanted to beat them to it, but that he assumed that the only necessary warning would be that the contents of a book, movie, etc, was intended for a mature audience. Once you were mature, aka into the adult world of media and literature, you accept the responsibility that entails for what you may experience.
And I agree with that. I don't think The Sandman would be improved by slapping labels on it that say "torture" and "suicide". Because the next step will be "non-Christian" and "homosexuality" and "racial equality". The people advocating this never think the pendulum could swing the other way, because they were children only recently. I can't imagine the laundry list you'd put on 1984 to suit multiple parties' interpretations of what is a trigger.
And I agree with that. I don't think The Sandman would be improved by slapping labels on it that say "torture" and "suicide". Because the next step will be "non-Christian" and "homosexuality" and "racial equality". The people advocating this never think the pendulum could swing the other way, because they were children only recently. I can't imagine the laundry list you'd put on 1984 to suit multiple parties' interpretations of what is a trigger.
You know... we're really at the point where we could just put a QR Code on the cover and let people scan that to see what it's warnings are if they really care. I'm kind of surprised they haven't started putting them on posters/covers for games and movies yet, right next to their rating. Basically everyone (but me) has a cellphone capable of reading a QR code.
Dave
Staff member
fade
Staff member
One important thing the audiences seem to be missing is that the jokes are supposed to be offensive. The comedian is absolutely aware of this fact. He or she is leveraging that offense. If a comedian gets up and says something intentionally offensive and it makes you laugh, good. There's a reason why you're uncomfortable, and now you're thinking about it. Ironically, this makes an offensive comedian a more effective social justice warrior than almost 100% of the people jeering because of the offense. That doesn't mean the comedian is intentionally starting a movement, or that that was the intent of the joke, but think for a minute about why we find this stuff funny in the first place (and I'm guessing 90%+ of the booing audience secretly finds the joke funny, which just adds to their own discomfort). There's a reason that's rooted in genetics and human psychology, and adaptation to group dynamics, and it probably has a great deal to do with getting uncomfortable issues out in the open.
I think the problem is that we've got some people now who think that the point of calling out microaggressions is to shut down others so they can feel temporarily emotionally unbothered, when the actual point of calling out microaggressions should be to help the aggressor deconstruct their own language and turn them into an ally.
The whole concept is predicated on the idea that the "aggressor" isn't consciously trying to be so, but has been conditioned by societal forces to think that certain behavior is okay. Because if they're consciously doing it, there's nothing "micro" about it.
The whole concept is predicated on the idea that the "aggressor" isn't consciously trying to be so, but has been conditioned by societal forces to think that certain behavior is okay. Because if they're consciously doing it, there's nothing "micro" about it.
Completely disagree. Simple example: American History X. PLENTY of triggers for many MANY things. But also a good way to shock people into thinking about the topics of race, prison, rape, violence, home defence, and probably a number of other topics too.
So they're INTENDING to set off triggers. And good on them for doing so.
American History X isn't a "microaggression". You can argue over whether the filmmakers went too far or not in choosing to be consciously triggering, but there is nothing micro about it.
You can also make a pretty strong argument that if a film class if going to show American History X, they should actually warn students because the content of the film is deliberately triggering, but students are still ostensibly there for the purposes of getting grade and can't easily leave halfway through.
You can also make a pretty strong argument that if a film class if going to show American History X, they should actually warn students because the content of the film is deliberately triggering, but students are still ostensibly there for the purposes of getting grade and can't easily leave halfway through.
That list of cognitive disorders at the end is sobering. I think I fall prey to 9 of the 12. *sigh*[DOUBLEPOST=1439392347,1439392087][/DOUBLEPOST]My interpretation of a micro-aggression doesn't include things like American History X, either. It's supposed to be more the things someone might do that are/can be offensive, because he doesn't know any better. People who grew up in 95% white towns can sometimes be unaware that certain ways of speaking or words can be seen as discriminatory or offensive, not because of ill will but due to lack of experience.
Without the internet, how many of us might call someone with, say, Down syndrome "mongoloid"? It's a derogatory term, but if you don't come into contact with someone who tells you, you might think it's a perfectly acceptable term. Ditto for, say, "dwarf", and so on.
Without the internet, how many of us might call someone with, say, Down syndrome "mongoloid"? It's a derogatory term, but if you don't come into contact with someone who tells you, you might think it's a perfectly acceptable term. Ditto for, say, "dwarf", and so on.
Common sense.
I take offense to the term bleed. It's clearly a sexist microagression. Maybe throw up a trigger warning next time you decide to be a pig.
Dave
Staff member
I feel like this belongs in this thread.
From Psychology Today.
It's too long to post, but it's about how college students just can't handle even the smallest things any longer. I'll leave just one example from the first paragraph that made me giggle.
From Psychology Today.
It's too long to post, but it's about how college students just can't handle even the smallest things any longer. I'll leave just one example from the first paragraph that made me giggle.
Zappit
Staff member
I dread the history books fifty years from now.
"From 2025 until November of 2048, Congress passed no bills that did not involve the legalization of marijuana. When faced with budgets, threats of war, and the need to reform social programs, numerous lawmakers reportedly stated they, 'couldn't even'. America fought no wars, as the military 'couldn't even' as well. Five star general Hunter Dakota Klein famously took to social media to encourage America's various enemies to commit suicide, often mocking their physical appearances."
"From 2025 until November of 2048, Congress passed no bills that did not involve the legalization of marijuana. When faced with budgets, threats of war, and the need to reform social programs, numerous lawmakers reportedly stated they, 'couldn't even'. America fought no wars, as the military 'couldn't even' as well. Five star general Hunter Dakota Klein famously took to social media to encourage America's various enemies to commit suicide, often mocking their physical appearances."
Last edited:
I don't have much to contribute on the microagression/your-fave-is-problematic shit (other than pure unadulterated loathing for the concepts). On the trigger warning front, however, I'm very fond of the fairly nuanced position outlined in the following article: The Wonderful Thing About Triggers, by Scott Alexander (ignore the title)
Well, let's be fair. They aren't complaining that people don't find their material funny. It isn't as if their audiences are merely not laughing or even heckling them. They are receiving indignant outrage as a response.When I see comedians complaining that younger people don't find their material funny.
See, while I'm "on the side" of the comedians in this case, that's not always a clear way of determining things. I'm fairly sure a comedian making clear and explicit racist jokes would get indignant outrage, too, and it might be appropriate or understandable. There is a difference between making a joke about something and making a joke out of something. Hmm, my language fails me - I'm tired and all - but still. A joke made about some stereotype can be off-color or perhaps a bit risque or "wrong" but still funny; a joke made presuming a circa-1850s Southern USA mindset as the "normal"/"correct" point of view of the audience and joking based off of that would be unfunny and probably get outrage. A lot of people these days don't see the difference between the two, but yeah.
No, I get it. I think it is fair to say that Jerry Seinfeld didn't suddenly turn racist, though. These are experienced comedians that have well-tread material that is provoking a different response than they have seen before.
And racist comedians around 1865 or 1955 may have suddenly faced a new generation with more modern and less accepting ideas, too, and had to adapt or die off.
I'm not saying Seinfeld turned racist; I'm saying maybe he was racist all along but only the newer generation sees the racism we all accept as "normal". And not even that - I happen to agree with his point that modern audiences can't not be offended, but maybe I'm just a dinosaur, too.
Hitting the secretary on her ass when passing by was perfectly acceptable in the 1980 in a lot of corporations. Nowadays, it's sexual harassment. Did people doing it suddenly "become" sexist? No, but the societal perception of their actions changed. Saying people getting offended at stuff that used to be OK isn't necessarily saying it's the new generation's problem, perhaps they've just become more sensitive to existing issues. Maybe we're wrong in thinking micro-aggressions are mostly bullshit, I dunno.