Speaking of being PC...

[Eighth-of-eleven]

You know, while I've seen examples of awareness of offensiveness and harm taken too far, I've seen a lot more examples of people crying "hypersensitive/PC" to shut down critique. It seems like simply pointing out "That's fucked up and offensive" is enough to get you labeled an "SJW." (A label that reminds me more and more of MRA complaints of "White knighting.")

Yup, i agree Terrie.

[PregnantPornStar]

You know, while I've seen examples of awareness of offensiveness and harm taken too far, I've seen a lot more examples of people crying "hypersensitive/PC" to shut down critique. It seems like simply pointing out "That's fucked up and offensive" is enough to get you labeled an "SJW." (A label that reminds me more and more of MRA complaints of "White knighting.")

So what is the answer? For the other party to agree and censor speech?

Taking offense and saying you take offense is one thing, but expecting to limit speech is another thing entirely.

[Whoosh]

So what is the answer? For the other party to agree and censor speech?

Taking offense and saying you take offense is one thing, but expecting to limit speech is another thing entirely.

Perhaps I am missing the part where people are recommending censorship? I hear people saying two things. First, there are circumstances where it seems appropriate to give some type of advanced warning before broaching extremely sensitive topics. That is not censorship and is nothing new (though I agree it has become somewhat extreme). If you ask me it is just common sense and human decency to do this. Second, I hear people saying that if someone says something offensive and/or incorrect, others can RESPOND to that by either offering the correct information or expressing their opinion on what was said. How is that censorship?

As people keep saying - you can SAY whatever you want (outside of actual hate speech, etc). Others can respond in the manner they see fit. If you don't like the reaction you get - perhaps you should alter your own behavior rather than trying to censor others? Just a thought.

[Terrie]

So what is the answer? For the other party to agree and censor speech?

Taking offense and saying you take offense is one thing, but expecting to limit speech is another thing entirely.

That wasn't what I was talking about. I was pointing out that the same people who insist the "overly sensitive" are trying to limit speech are using that exact argument to get critique shut down. Actual example:

I will not use the name of the Washinton football team. It's a nasty racial slur. People have responded to me saying I, personally, will not use it (and only that I personally will not use it) with cries of "censorship!" and "SJW!" I see this attempt to shut down all conversation WAY more than I see it in the reverse.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Unfortunately there are many Mr Dupont

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Perhaps I am missing the part where people are recommending censorship? I hear people saying two things. First, there are circumstances where it seems appropriate to give some type of advanced warning before broaching extremely sensitive topics. That is not censorship and is nothing new (though I agree it has become somewhat extreme). If you ask me it is just common sense and human decency to do this. Second, I hear people saying that if someone says something offensive and/or incorrect, others can RESPOND to that by either offering the correct information or expressing their opinion on what was said. How is that censorship?

As people keep saying - you can SAY whatever you want (outside of actual hate speech, etc). Others can respond in the manner they see fit. If you don't like the reaction you get - perhaps you should alter your own behavior rather than trying to censor others? Just a thought.

To the bolded - that is all this is. And to those who say we can't possibly know everyone's triggers and there is always someone who can be upset by anything no matter how innocuous I would say it's like stepping on toes in the literal sense.

In life as we navigate around others most people take care to keep from inadvertently stepping on other's people's literal toes. When it's a situation where it's more likely to happen (crowded space, dancing, etc.) we take extra care to watch where you're stepping and to warn people when you're clomping through carrying a couch and can't move out of their way so they can protect their feet if need be. The stuff covered in classes which are common triggers for many and giving them a heads up before hand is the toe stomping equivalent of letting people know you're moving the couch where there feet are in time for them to move them out of the way.

But try as we might to avoid it sometimes we will step on someone's toe. And the normal reaction of the stepper is to be sorry you caused pain inadvertently to another person and of the steppee is to understand that while it hurts they didn't do it on purpose and sometimes this will happen. No one should take to a hair shirt or screaming diatribe over an accident. That's the normal conversation where stuff could come up that person A would have no idea that could be a trigger for person B. Or a trigger so specific to that person no one else could be expected to know.

But the argument that is made that because we'll never be able to do trigger warnings 100% of the time that they are pointless makes no sense to me. If I'm walking to the bathroom in the middle of the night and accidentally step on the foot of my kid who I didn't see while half asleep in the dark I shouldn't take that to mean I can run through crowded hallways with no regard for toes.

Belabored analogy so TLDR - comes down to in life we should all do our best to try not to be a dick. It's that simple.

[Eighth-of-eleven]

Perhaps I am missing the part where people are recommending censorship? I hear people saying two things. First, there are circumstances where it seems appropriate to give some type of advanced warning before broaching extremely sensitive topics. That is not censorship and is nothing new (though I agree it has become somewhat extreme). If you ask me it is just common sense and human decency to do this. Second, I hear people saying that if someone says something offensive and/or incorrect, others can RESPOND to that by either offering the correct information or expressing their opinion on what was said. How is that censorship?

As people keep saying - you can SAY whatever you want (outside of actual hate speech, etc). Others can respond in the manner they see fit. If you don't like the reaction you get - perhaps you should alter your own behavior rather than trying to censor others? Just a thought.

Woosh, you said what I was thinking so well, much better than I could express it these days , Thank you.

[PregnantPornStar]

Perhaps I am missing the part where people are recommending censorship? I hear people saying two things. First, there are circumstances where it seems appropriate to give some type of advanced warning before broaching extremely sensitive topics. That is not censorship and is nothing new (though I agree it has become somewhat extreme). If you ask me it is just common sense and human decency to do this. Second, I hear people saying that if someone says something offensive and/or incorrect, others can RESPOND to that by either offering the correct information or expressing their opinion on what was said. How is that censorship?

As people keep saying - you can SAY whatever you want (outside of actual hate speech, etc). Others can respond in the manner they see fit. If you don't like the reaction you get - perhaps you should alter your own behavior rather than trying to censor others? Just a thought.

You are missing the point. Again. Or simply arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "knowing your audience" and speaking in a respectful manner. That is all part of being a decent human being. However, currently, in your words, "it has become somewhat extreme." That is essentially what we are talking about. I don't think it can be denied that people are more worried about a negative consequence (lawsuit, kicked out of school, etc) than anything. People shouldn't need to "censor" their speech to prevent someone from suing them because it "triggered" a reaction. I think it is fair to say that the average college student is capable of looking at a pretty basic syllabus and determining what may or may not be discussed. If you happen to be in a class where conversation flows and something gets brought up and person who brought up a possible trigger did so unintentionally, do you hold the person accountable for bringing up said topic? Is it fair to say "hey, that deserved a trigger warning!" Maybe in some cases, but how do you go about saying it? Bring it up in front of an entire lecture hall or class? Do you speak to the person privately? Do you make mention to your professor? What if it didn't bother YOU, but you are thinking about it possibly bothering someone else, but nobody spoke up?

I hate the idea of people having bad feelings or better yet, having been in a situation that may cause them to feel the need for a trigger warning. THAT sucks. However, I also hate that such things can cause such power over so many situations. I am not free from a perfect life. I have my own issues and there are things that can trigger me. My husband knows this and makes a point to warn me before a movie. Why? Because it is what he wants to do. I have never asked such a thing or even suggested such a thing. In all honesty, while I appreciate that it makes him feel better, it does bother me a little bit because I don't want said issue to own me. I get that this is the way I personally feel, but I also realize that I am capable of googling a movie to quickly see if, on that given evening, I am not in a place where I want to see it given the subject. I take personal responsibility for that and would never expect everyone else act accordingly. I do not want to halt conversation or make others feel uncomfortable discussing certain topics because they worry they may need a trigger or feel they are taboo.

Sure, having a trigger warning doesn't mean that you cannot discuss the topic, it is just a warning to said topic, but, is it a slippery slope and is it possibly preventing people from even bringing up the topic. Also, as I have said before, there are COUNTLESS things that could need a trigger warning.

Quite frankly, I have never in my life been told that something I have said has deserved a trigger warning. I may have "offended" people, but that has been simply by doing things like breastfeeding, or not going to church. It isn't that I have brought these things up intentionally, but they do come up or get noticed. I think I mentioned before, I made a family member cry because I choose to breastfeed. THAT, quite frankly, is not my problem. I am sorry that person didn't feel good, but my actions were obviously not an attack on her actions. People have been flat out horrified and stated they were "offended" that I don't go to church. These very people make point of telling me so, but had specifically asked if I have "found a church". I am very careful about saying "no, we don't go" or "We aren't Christian" or something along those lines, but people pry. Does it bother me that people ask me when we are basically strangers? Yes and no. I was brought up that you do not discuss religion or politics unless you know someone well. However, I also realize that church is often a HUGE part of people's lives. Regardless of my feelings on that, I realize that some people have their own feelings and "generally" mean no harm by asking me and even being slightly pushy about asking me.

Still, I won't call someone out on it unless they won't shut up about the topic. If that happens, then yes, I am going to say "Listen, this is who I am, and your opinions on church or breastfeeding or whatever are not welcome. You are being rude and disrespectful" However, if a random person says something about hating moms who breastfeed or people who are atheists, I am, most likely, not going to call them out and shame them for it.

Last year my new neighbor was going through a divorce. She was telling me about it and how she had no idea how people manage to go through hard times without God. Being that my life hasn't been perfect and I have managed perfectly well, I didn't agree, but I certainly wasn't offended. She was venting and didn't realize. I think my calling her out on being unaware that not everyone who deals with shitty things is religious and they are also capable of life was beneficially.

I think most people mean well. They don't mean to hurt feelings or upset anyone. Shaming them for NOT using a trigger warning is, in my opinion, bullying, in most cases. Are there situations where someone needs to be called out immediately for saying something completely out of line? Of course, but I think that is a minority of people.

edited to remove "evil" face that I didn't intend to put there. I am blaming my dog.

[Whoosh]

You are missing the point. Again. Or simply arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

Nope. Not at all. Simply responding to what you actually say.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "knowing your audience" and speaking in a respectful manner. That is all part of being a decent human being. However, currently, in your words, "it has become somewhat extreme." That is essentially what we are talking about.

Stopped reading your wall of text here. I am sure others may read further and respond to the rest of it (and I may do that later).

I think most people here are talking about just that. You, however, like to respond to people talking about that by using blanket statements about censorship, coddling, hypersensitivity, etc. You seem to discount or ignore entirely what others are actually saying while you try to push your own personal opinion on others (often in the form of a question that completely ignores the thoughts and opinions of others in the conversation). Perhaps in the rest of this post you actually stop with the gross over-generalizations and blanket statements and start talking about the real issues. Perhaps not. Either way, you will likely find (not just here but in life) that people will respond to what you actually say and write. If that tends to be gross over-generalizations, false claims (of things like censorship), and complete refusal to look at all but one narrow slice of the issue - you will get the responses you get.

As I said in my initial post on this thread, I think this is an important issue. Your presentation of the topic, mischaracterization of the thoughts and opinions of others, and refusal to acknowledge anything but the one narrow point you want to rant about leaves me completely disinterested in engaging in the conversation. I wonder if that could be considered a form of censorship? Doubt it.

[PregnantPornStar]

Nope. Not at all. Simply responding to what you actually say.

Stopped reading your wall of text here. I am sure others may read further and respond to the rest of it (and I may do that later).

I think most people here are talking about just that. You, however, like to respond to people talking about that by using blanket statements about censorship, coddling, hypersensitivity, etc. You seem to discount or ignore entirely what others are actually saying while you try to push your own personal opinion on others (often in the form of a question that completely ignores the thoughts and opinions of others in the conversation). Perhaps in the rest of this post you actually stop with the gross over-generalizations and blanket statements and start talking about the real issues. Perhaps not. Either way, you will likely find (not just here but in life) that people will respond to what you actually say and write. If that tends to be gross over-generalizations, false claims (of things like censorship), and complete refusal to look at all but one narrow slice of the issue - you will get the responses you get.

As I said in my initial post on this thread, I think this is an important issue. Your presentation of the topic, mischaracterization of the thoughts and opinions of others, and refusal to acknowledge anything but the one narrow point you want to rant about leaves me completely disinterested in engaging in the conversation. I wonder if that could be considered a form of censorship? Doubt it.

Seriously? Why even respond? So, what you are assuming I wrote elicited you to rush to your keyboard and type out your attempted insults about my "narrow opinion" that doesn't fit yours? If you are disinterested WTF are you even reading or responding?

Your responses to me are among some of the most nonsensical responses of all. It isn't even that we could possibly be seeing different sides of the coin here, but that you are constantly blathering about how things "frustrate" you, how I "refuse to acknowledge" what is being said or to tell me how conversations will go in my life? What? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean? Do you think I have lived in a cave and not engaged with people my entire life? WTF kind of thought is that? Obviously not one that was well thought out.

[Whoosh]

Seriously? Why even respond? So, what you are assuming I wrote elicited you to rush to your keyboard and type out your attempted insults about my "narrow opinion" that doesn't fit yours? If you are disinterested WTF are you even reading or responding?

Your responses to me are among some of the most nonsensical responses of all. It isn't even that we could possibly be seeing different sides of the coin here, but that you are constantly blathering about how things "frustrate" you, how I "refuse to acknowledge" what is being said or to tell me how conversations will go in my life? What? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean? Do you think I have lived in a cave and not engaged with people my entire life? WTF kind of thought is that? Obviously not one that was well thought out.

As I said early on in this discussion, I hope you accomplish whatever you set out to accomplish in this conversation. Best of luck in sorting out your feelings and reactions to the existence of trigger warnings, safe spaces, "PCness" and other realities of life.

[Terrie]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "knowing your audience" and speaking in a respectful manner. That is all part of being a decent human being. However, currently, in your words, "it has become somewhat extreme." That is essentially what we are talking about. I don't think it can be denied that people are more worried about a negative consequence (lawsuit, kicked out of school, etc) than anything. People shouldn't need to "censor" their speech to prevent someone from suing them because it "triggered" a reaction..

Please give a real example of someone being punished for "triggering" someone else. You know, as opposed to being punished for being a raging asshole. This is exactly what I've been talking about. People acting like having to live with the consequences of their speech is a terrible, terrible crime.

[PregnantPornStar]

Please give a real example of someone being punished for "triggering" someone else. You know, as opposed to being punished for being a raging asshole. This is exactly what I've been talking about. People acting like having to live with the consequences of their speech is a terrible, terrible crime.

I think the previously linked Atlantic article can supply you with some examples.

In fact, The NPR piece I posted stated that there are consequences to ones speech. If someone is in class making blatantly racist remarks or having a conversation over dinner with friends, getting called out is likely going to happen. That is a consequence of speech. Which is why I was bringing up hypersensitivity. If grammar is corrected by a professor and that is labeled as "microaggression", that is hypersensitive. THAT is overgeneralizing.

[Terrie]

I think the previously linked Atlantic article can supply you with some examples.

In fact, The NPR piece I posted stated that there are consequences to ones speech. If someone is in class making blatantly racist remarks or having a conversation over dinner with friends, getting called out is likely going to happen. That is a consequence of speech. Which is why I was bringing up hypersensitivity. If grammar is corrected by a professor and that is labeled as "microaggression", that is hypersensitive. THAT is overgeneralizing.

Let's look at some of those examples.

Omar Mahmood. Says he was let go because he wrote a column that offended students. Newspaper points out that "While the Daily respects the free speech rights of members of the campus community, our bylaws do not allow writers to discuss the internal politics and governance of the Daily in external publications while remaining part of the Daily staff. The former columnist was offered an opportunity to appeal this decision, which he has chosen not to pursue." I don't think anyone is shocked when you go on national news, bad mouth your employer and then get fired.

Keith John Sampson: Had no formal punishment given, just a letter of formal complain from the University and the University issued an apology the next year -- in 2008.

The rest that involve actual punishment by a formal system involve various interpretations of comments as threats, which you really, really have to stretch to call an issue of "PC" and not the general US sense of paranoia where people aren't allowed to take metal knitting needles on planes.

[church_of_dog]

Sorry, PPS, but Woosh is one of the more articulate ones. I believe that you mean well and have some interesting and valid points to make, but you're not expressing them clearly and you seem to consistently misunderstand/misinterpret others when they say things that most folks here have no trouble comprehending. You can continue to argue otherwise, but I think you'll make more progress in the conversation and in your own thought processes if you consider the possibility that it's you...

[PregnantPornStar]

Sorry, PPS, but Woosh is one of the more articulate ones. I believe that you mean well and have some interesting and valid points to make, but you're not expressing them clearly and you seem to consistently misunderstand/misinterpret others when they say things that most folks here have no trouble comprehending. You can continue to argue otherwise, but I think you'll make more progress in the conversation and in your own thought processes if you consider the possibility that it's you...

I didn't intend to like this. Thanks Tapa. :)

Regardless, I guess it is me and Woosh's frustration is clearly due to me triggering that. Sorry.

[Curious]

You are missing the point. Again. Or simply arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

Woosh is not the one missing the point. Also, as much as I love verbosity and am a frequent user myself, saying the most words isn't what "wins" the argument.

You are making Ken Alexander look like HA, which is not an easy task.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

I didn't intend to like this. Thanks Tapa. :)

Regardless, I guess it is me and Woosh's frustration is clearly due to me triggering that. Sorry.

Wow. Really?!

Can you not see how comments like this are obnoxiously unattractive?!?

For the record, I wrote an extensive post some pages back. The only response from you was to get upset because I questioned your motivation in starting this thread.

Posts such as your most recent reinforce my belief that you are either intentionally provocative or absolutely tone deaf.

[PregnantPornStar]

Woosh is not the one missing the point. Also, as much as I love verbosity and am a frequent user myself, saying the most words isn't what "wins" the argument.

You are making Ken Alexander look like HA, which is not an easy task.

I honestly don't even know wtf you are talking about or who Ken Alexander is or who the fuck is trying to "win" an argument.

[Curious]

I honestly don't even know wtf you are talking about or who Ken Alexander is or who the fuck is trying to "win" an argument.

When the (problem) common denominator in every discussion is you, it's time to start thinking maybe it's not ALL the other people that have problems and that YOU are the problem.

BTW, we have a good search engine here now and there is also a thing called "google." Both of those items can give you loads of information on topics that you are not sure about.

[latraviata]

I honestly don't even know wtf you are talking about or who Ken Alexander is or who the fuck is trying to "win" an argument.

Well PPS, you've learned a valuable lesson, dissent opinions (FJ's common denominator) are not valued and are immediately punished!

I've decided that you do not belong to the bloodless PC whine club and I love you for that!!!

[Curious]

Well PPS, you've learned a valuable lesson, dissent opinions (FJ's common denominator) are not valued and are immediately punished!

I've decided that you do not belong to the bloodless PC whine club and I love you for that!!!

How exactly is anyone being punished? Because people don't agree with PPS and are stating that? That's not punishment, ffs. She can say whatever she wants (within the limits of the rules), but that doesn't mean that other people have to buy into her bullshit.

If I was posting and being told by a number of people that I was either being intentionally obtuse, missing the point, stirring shit, etc, I would take a moment to reevaluate why that was happening, not just double down on the attitude that has made people take me to task.

[Beb]

How exactly is anyone being punished? Because people don't agree with PPS and are stating that? That's not punishment, ffs. She can say whatever she wants (within the limits of the rules), but that doesn't mean that other people have to buy into her bullshit.

If I was posting and being told by a number of people that I was either being intentionally obtuse, missing the point, stirring shit, etc, I would take a moment to reevaluate why that was happening, not just double down on the attitude that has made people take me to task.

.....or maybe it's simply a core group....or maybe those who don't see PPS as being particularly contentious and/or who may agree with her are just quieter, more accepting of dissent, not as prone to arguing a point, or any or all these.

I really don't see where PPS has been any more attacking, impolite, or unaccepting of dissenting opinion than a few of those who, by the definition bring applied here, seem to be rude and attacking her.

Even if she were the "common denominator", is it important to walk lock-step? She has a different opinion than do you or a couple of others; she has expressed her opinion in no more contentious manner than the others have expressed theirs. That's good, isn't it?

[latraviata]

How exactly is anyone being punished? Because people don't agree with PPS and are stating that? That's not punishment, ffs. She can say whatever she wants (within the limits of the rules), but that doesn't mean that other people have to buy into her bullshit.

If I was posting and being told by a number of people that I was either being intentionally obtuse, missing the point, stirring shit, etc, I would take a moment to reevaluate why that was happening, not just double down on the attitude that has made people take me to task.

O(h please shut up!!

[PregnantPornStar]

How exactly is anyone being punished? Because people don't agree with PPS and are stating that? That's not punishment, ffs. She can say whatever she wants (within the limits of the rules), but that doesn't mean that other people have to buy into her bullshit.

If I was posting and being told by a number of people that I was either being intentionally obtuse, missing the point, stirring shit, etc, I would take a moment to reevaluate why that was happening, not just double down on the attitude that has made people take me to task.

You are realizing that not everyone buys into you bullshit as well? Right?

Obviously people don't all have the same opinion as me. Clearly, or else there wouldn't be anything to discuss other than the majority opinion and backing that up.

There are, however, some that do agree with the dissenting opinion. Therefor, I see no need to "reevaluate", but do realize you are continuously deflecting from the topic by bemoaning and accusing me of "stirring shit"