Speaking of being PC...

[Terrie]

Personally, I think the basic issue of this thread is that, from the start, the waters were badly muddied by equating a bunch of very different issues into one. By equating trigger warnings with "overly sensitive PC," what you've done is equated people asking for accommodation with coddling. Intentionally or not, that sends a seriously ableist message,

Several people have tried to make sure these topics get split off, only for other people to immediately equate them all again, which pretty much ensures the conversation spiraling down into the muck, so matter what people's intentions are.

[Whoosh]

With regard to mentioning personal experiences, I do agree that bringing too much emotion to the table makes it extremely difficult to have a conversation on a topic such as this. However, someone who shares an experience from their life is not necessarily emotional about the issue. I brought up a personal experience from a time when I appreciated (but did not expect) trigger warnings in order to illustrate a point. I am well beyond that period of time in my life. I am no longer emotional about the topic and I don't need trigger warnings. I am not hypersensitive to discussions of suicide. I have (and will continue) to use personal examples where it seems appropriate in order to illustrate a point.

I have expressed frustration, but it is not due to my hypersensitive nature or my "coddled mind". Trust me, it takes a lot to offend me. What I find frustrating is the argumentative strategies used by a few who seem quite hypersensitive to any criticism of their opinions or statements. Gross over-generalizations, conflating of issues, misuse of words, and othering of people is likely to lead to certain types of responses. For example, saying "the problem with Islam is..." is simply ridiculous and it should not take numerous pages of posts from numerous people to try to explain why. It would not fly if I said "the problem with fundie men is that they sexually assault women and children". Further, making factually inaccurate claims about a group or individual in order to attack or discredit them is unacceptable. When that happens the appropriate response is to correct the factual information. If I said "The Duggars subscribe to the FLDS belief system", I would fully expect someone to correct my error. Similarly, making false claims that a particular individual "subscribes to Wahhabism" or that "Muslims believe in stoning adulterous women" doesn't lead us any closer to understanding the problem or finding a solution. In reality, such statements do the exact opposite. It is frustrating when people bring up an important issue in a manner that basically assures a non-productive, misleading, and possibly contentious conversation.

The gross over-generalizations, conflating of issues, misuse of words, and othering of people has and will likely continue to illicit reactions that point out the flaws in the statements or arguments made. Telling people how they should feel about or react to a given situation or statement will likely elicit responses that demonstrate why your blanket statement is flawed in some way. I am not sure that anyone has suggested people change their opinions on a topic, so I am not sure where that idea comes from. I will suggest again that if people repeatedly and consistently don't like the responses they get to the comments they make, perhaps they should take a step back and reexamine their own behavior rather than asking the world to change to suit their personal needs.

The responses and reactions that are being labeled as "hypersensitive" and products of a "coddled mind" are readily predictable. If you don't mind the reactions you get when you voice your thoughts and opinions, by all means keep motoring forward expressing whatever you want in whatever manner suits your fancy. On the other hand, if you don't like the reactions you get when you voice your thoughts and opinions it might be worth considering how you might frame your comments in a different manner that would lead to a more productive conversation. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results - don't some say that is the definition of insanity? Voicing your thoughts and opinions in a manner that we can all readily predict will lead to reactions you don't like and then pissing and moaning and whining about it when those predictable reactions do indeed occur just really seems like an odd choice.

ETA - sorry for dragging a conversation from another thread into things to illustrate a point. However, the specifics or particular topic is not really important to what I am saying here. The same general principles apply.

Edited for riffles, riffles, and more riffles.

[latraviata]

With regard to mentioning personal experiences, I do agree that bringing too much emotion to the table makes it extremely difficult to have a conversation on a topic such as this. However, someone who shares an experience from their life is not necessarily emotional about the issue. I brought up a personal experience from a time when I appreciated (but did not expect) trigger warnings in order to illustrate a point. I am well beyond that period of time in my life. I am no longer emotional about the topic and I don't need trigger warnings. I am not hypersensitive to discussions of suicide. I have (and will continue) to use personal examples where it seems appropriate in order to illustrate a point.

I have expressed frustration, but it is not due to my hypersensitive nature or my "coddled mind". Trust me, it takes a lot to offend me. What I find frustrating is the argumentative strategies used by a few who seem quite hypersensitive to any criticism of their opinions or statements. Gross over-generalizations, conflating of issues, misuse of words, and othering of people is likely to lead to certain types of responses. For example, saying "the problem with Islam is..." is simply ridiculous and it should not take numerous pages of posts from numerous people to try to explain why. It would not fly if I said "the problem with fundie men is that they sexually assault women and children". Further, making factually inaccurate claims about a group or individual in order to attack or discredit them is unacceptable. When that happens the appropriate response is to correct the factual information. If I said "The Duggars subscribe to the FLDS belief system", I would fully expect someone to correct my error. Similarly, making false claims that a particular individual "subscribes to Wahhabism" or that "Muslims believe in stoning adulterous women" doesn't lead us any closer to understanding the problem or finding a solution. In reality, such statements do the exact opposite. It is frustrating when people bring up an important issue in a manner that basically assures a non-productive, misleading, and possibly contentious conversation.

The gross over-generalizations, conflating of issues, misuse of words, and othering of people has and will likely continue to illicit reactions that point out the flaws in the statements or arguments made. Telling people how they should feel about or react to a given situation or statement will likely elicit responses that demonstrate why your blanket statement is flawed in some way. I am not sure that anyone has suggested people change their opinions on a topic, so I am not sure where that idea comes from. I will suggest again that if people repeatedly and consistently don't like the responses they get to the comments they make, perhaps they should take a step back and reexamine their own behavior rather than asking the world to change to suit their personal needs.

The responses and reactions that are being labeled as "hypersensitive" and products of a "coddled mind" are readily predictable. If you don't mind the reactions you get when you voice your thoughts and opinions, by all means keep motoring forward expressing whatever you want in whatever manner suits your fancy. On the other hand, if you don't like the reactions you get when you voice your thoughts and opinions it might be worth considering how you might frame your comments in a different manner that would lead to a more productive conversation. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results - don't some say that is the definition of insanity? Voicing your thoughts and opinions in a manner that we can all readily predict will lead to reactions you don't like and then pissing and moaning and whining about it when those predictable reactions do indeed occur just really seems like an odd choice.

ETA - sorry for dragging a conversation from another thread into things to illustrate a point. However, the specifics or particular topic is not really important to what I am saying here. The same general principles apply.

Edited for riffles, riffles, and more riffles.

Thank you Woosh, I am delighted that after so many years, finally somebody is able to tell me how to have a proper discussion!!!

Te racist/islamophobe spell doesn't work anymore, nor does the generalisation card.

We have passed that station. Gone are the days that we started our criticism with, "I know they are many hardworking law abiding....." I am talking about the ones........Everybody with half a brain understands that one prefers to address a problem and it doesn't always apply to everybody, to a hell of a lot it does though, but not everybody! Anyway thanks for your sermon, lecture, you choose.

Btw, how did we go from Zsu's Rubenesque appearance to your depression???

[Whoosh]

Thank you Woosh, I am delighted that after so many years, finally somebody is able to tell me how to have a proper discussion!!!

Te racist/islamophobe spell doesn't work anymore, nor does the generalisation card.

We have passed that station. Gone are the days that we started our criticism with, "I know they are many hardworking law abiding....." I am talking about the ones........Everybody with half a brain understands that one prefers to address a problem and it doesn't always apply to everybody,a hell of a lot though, but not everybody! Anyway thanks for your sermon, lecture, you choose.

Your welcome! :wink-kitty:

Btw, how did we go from Zsu's Rubenesque appearance to your depression???

HUH?

[Curious]

Um, where did THAT come from?

I know that ad hominem attacks aren't prohibited by the terms of use, but they don't make for productive debate and discussion. You're better than that.

Once upon a time, I was part of a board where one particular poster would occasionally go off on others, and she also shared that she had wacky hormone issues (PCOS) that caused some extreme mood swings. When I genuinely thought that some of her posts were motivated by medical issues, I'd PM her and ask if things were ok, because the tone was sounding out of character again. Here, I'm not feeling the sincerity and true concern for La Traviata's health (and if it WAS sincere, the concern was not expressed effectively).

It came from me being tired of being told to shut up when I post on a topic, this isn't the first time.

She is the one that spent several days explaining away her posting of a HATE SITE as a source on FJ as being essentially a foible of getting old. During that conversation, her normally excellent English was dramatically different than her normal posts.

You can believe what you want, but her behavior here has changed recently and I think that is a cause for concern. Since people felt free to call me out in public, I didn't feel the need to PM her. I don't tend to PM people when a discussion is taking place in public, as a matter of course.

This is the third (or maybe fourth) thread that 3 people have managed to turn into a huge clusterfuck recently and quite frankly I'm sick of it. We are ALL better than this.

Edit to add: These are my PERSONAL opinions, just to be clear. That should be obvious since I'm not using the mod tag, but just so everyone is on the same page, I'm clarifying.

One more edit to add: I'm not flouncing this thread, but we are in crunch time getting stuff ready for downtime, so I likely won't be posting on any threads until after the site is brought back up. So please don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond right away if you (general) address me/my posts.

[FundieFarmer]

We all know I appreciate a solid TW, but after I was assaulted I knew immediately that I wouldn't get them in a day-to-day setting. So, I made it an intention to avoid the "Wild West", or anywhere I knew wasn't as controlled an environment as I could get it. I felt that was part of my responsibility in moving toward healing. I know others don't feel that way, but I do think it isn't unreasonable to expect survivors to take some onus of healing on themselves. Even when you try to make your environment as safe as possible, a TW isn't guaranteed all the time. It's important to recognize that on the road to healing. That said, I also don't think it's unreasonable to tack a TW onto hot topics.

I think it's an interesting idea that PPS proposed, that a TW may in fact contribute to a more graphic, or inappropriate conversation, than otherwise would've been had. In my experience, TWs have preceded everything from the mundane to the extremely graphic. What do y'all think?

[Terrie]

We all know I appreciate a solid TW, but after I was assaulted I knew immediately that I wouldn't get them in a day-to-day setting. So, I made it an intention to avoid the "Wild West", or anywhere I knew wasn't as controlled an environment as I could get it. I felt that was part of my responsibility in moving toward healing. I know others don't feel that way, but I do think it isn't unreasonable to expect survivors to take some onus of healing on themselves. Even when you try to make your environment as safe as possible, a TW isn't guaranteed all the time. It's important to recognize that on the road to healing. That said, I also don't think it's unreasonable to tack a TW onto hot topics.

I think it's an interesting idea that PPS proposed, that a TW may in fact contribute to a more graphic, or inappropriate conversation, than otherwise would've been had. In my experience, TWs have preceded everything from the mundane to the extremely graphic. What do y'all think?

I think it's a false dichotomy to compare TW and being responsible for your own healing. TWs are a form of information. Information lets people make decisions. Making decisions is part of "healing."

The assumption always seems to be "Well, people want TWs so they don't have to deal with anything" which strikes me as something that was made up out of thin air. It seems to draw on an image of mental illness as purely an acute crisis. You have trauma, you have a breakdown, you get help, you get "normal." As a person with life long mental illness, I am really fucking sick of the assumption that if I get the right "help" I can become "normal".

Maybe part of the issue is the name. What most people are basically asking for is "content information." No one quibbles when movies and TV have content information. That's what I want. It's like a diabetic asking for nutritional information. It's a tool I can use to make decisions.

[FundieFarmer]

Sorry, I just meant to say that while I wholeheartedly endorse TWs, survivors can't reasonably rely on TWs forever to make all conversations safe. I fought to make my environment as safe as I could, and it worked for me. But eventually I realized and hated that my world was manufactured, and was ready to go into forums/conversations/read articles that had the word "rape". Until then, TWs really did give me a way to avoid unwanted reactions to something I couldn't control. If I didn't know it was safe, I didn't go there. So yes, to me then, it was a way not to deal. Now, it's how I brace myself. I do like your TV comparison. A TV warning tells me not to watch a show, but if I miss the warning, I may discover the graphic content anyway. That's just what I'm trying to say about not expecting or being dependent on TWs.

By saying that the onus of healing is on survivors, I'm saying that at some point, you have to reach that point where you don't expect for everything to be soft and safe. Right after I was first assaulted, I joined a survivors Facebook group that did more harm than good. The women there made me feel there was no healing in sight. Much of the conversations were about how they still wanted that safe and soft sheltered world, decades later. And I get that desire- I really do. But it wasn't until I left the group that things started to get better. And no, I was never back to "normal". I just got a new normal, and it works just fine for me. I agree the assumption is frustrating.

Anyway, that was my experience, so I'm interested in knowing differently. I know I have an unpopular opinion about it, despite being a survivor. I agree that content information is a great way to look at it. It's just going to be a matter of where we agree that line is drawn.

[PregnantPornStar]

We all know I appreciate a solid TW, but after I was assaulted I knew immediately that I wouldn't get them in a day-to-day setting. So, I made it an intention to avoid the "Wild West", or anywhere I knew wasn't as controlled an environment as I could get it. I felt that was part of my responsibility in moving toward healing. I know others don't feel that way, but I do think it isn't unreasonable to expect survivors to take some onus of healing on themselves. Even when you try to make your environment as safe as possible, a TW isn't guaranteed all the time. It's important to recognize that on the road to healing. That said, I also don't think it's unreasonable to tack a TW onto hot topics.

I think it's an interesting idea that PPS proposed, that a TW may in fact contribute to a more graphic, or inappropriate conversation, than otherwise would've been had. In my experience, TWs have preceded everything from the mundane to the extremely graphic. What do y'all think?

A few things here. Firstly, of course it isn't unreasonable to tack a TW onto any topic. Expecting people to tack on TWings is what I see as the bigger problem. That being said, when speaking of survivors and victims of abuse, I agree that it is reasonable to expect survivors to take some "responsibility" or "ownership" in healing. In part, I think it is often easier for the survivor to know what is and is not working for them. One person may feel that avoiding "triggers" is helpful, whereas another may actually find that "confronting" triggers is helpful. Ultimately, as you said, a TW isn't going to happen on all of the time. No matter how much you want it. It is important to recognize this and I do worry that some people will grow to expect otherwise.

As to my the later bolded, I think it is interesting that you noted you have experienced a difference in conversation. I think this is part of what I am trying to get at. TW or not, the following can be sugar-coated or harsh and blunt. As I have said before, this is where people need to know their audience and if they do not, choosing your words carefully and respectfully isn't a bad thing. I grew up being told to think before I speak.

Someone once told me something that stuck with them. A teacher had the class empty toothpaste tubes. After they were finished they were asked to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Obviously they could not do this. The same goes for what you say. That doesn't mean you cannot say things and have important conversations, but you can approach topics with care as opposed to spewing out nonsense. Manners seem to be somewhat of a lost art. I often find that younger people seem to expect the world to be cushy, all while lacking tact or respect themselves. Of course this isn't always the case and isn't exclusively to younger generations, but it does seem to be a growing "trend" so to speak.

[PregnantPornStar]

*snip*

Maybe part of the issue is the name. What most people are basically asking for is "content information." No one quibbles when movies and TV have content information. That's what I want. It's like a diabetic asking for nutritional information. It's a tool I can use to make decisions.

I almost brought up content warning on TV and movies multiple times. I think that part of this is where "survivor responsibility" can be logical. There are tools that can be used to avoid things you aren't wanting to hear. So, if you are about to watch a movie for a class or going out with a group of friends, the onus is on you, not your professor or your friends.

[Terrie]

FundieFarmer, I think part of the difference is that I have a life-long chronic condition, not PTSD. For me, diabetes is a good analogy of how I live. Just like a diabetic has to take into consideration their blood sugar when they choose to eat something, I have to gauge my resources at any given time. I have OCD. Something that may be fine when I have high resources may cause issues when I have low resources. It's not about "healing" but about management.

The thing that has always frustrated me about much of the discussion of TWs is that critics tend to say "Well, if you really have a problem, you should go to therapy." (HEnce my frustration with the idea that people with mental illness need to get "normal.") In my opinion, what people with mental illness really need is their own agency. I have the right to information needed to make an informed decision (hence my feeling we should call it content information) and then I get to make a decision and live with the consequences.

I've ignored content information and had it come back to bite me on the butt. I have no one to blame but myself there. But I've also had people knowingly withhold information that might have affected my decisions, because they thought I shouldn't be "coddled" for my illness. To me, that's as bad as someone saying "You can't watch/hear/see that because it might trigger your issues." There's no difference, because both deny me te right to set my own goals and make my own decisions for myself.

[PregnantPornStar]

Sorry, I just meant to say that while I wholeheartedly endorse TWs, survivors can't reasonably rely on TWs forever to make all conversations safe. I fought to make my environment as safe as I could, and it worked for me. But eventually I realized and hated that my world was manufactured, and was ready to go into forums/conversations/read articles that had the word "rape". Until then, TWs really did give me a way to avoid unwanted reactions to something I couldn't control. If I didn't know it was safe, I didn't go there. So yes, to me then, it was a way not to deal. Now, it's how I brace myself. I do like your TV comparison. A TV warning tells me not to watch a show, but if I miss the warning, I may discover the graphic content anyway. That's just what I'm trying to say about not expecting or being dependent on TWs.

By saying that the onus of healing is on survivors, I'm saying that at some point, you have to reach that point where you don't expect for everything to be soft and safe. Right after I was first assaulted, I joined a survivors Facebook group that did more harm than good. The women there made me feel there was no healing in sight. Much of the conversations were about how they still wanted that safe and soft sheltered world, decades later. And I get that desire- I really do. But it wasn't until I left the group that things started to get better. And no, I was never back to "normal". I just got a new normal, and it works just fine for me. I agree the assumption is frustrating.

Anyway, that was my experience, so I'm interested in knowing differently. I know I have an unpopular opinion about it, despite being a survivor. I agree that content information is a great way to look at it. It's just going to be a matter of where we agree that line is drawn.

What I take from this is that you figured out what worked for you and also realized that you cannot expect everything to go according to plan at all times (I am really summing this up...a lot)

You used the word "manufactured" and I do think that is a great word to describe it. I think part of becoming "normal" is not going back to the old "same" but to be able to not live in a manufactured world. I hope I am making sense here.

I have had things "trigger" me. Yet, I never once faulted anyone else for that or even considered it could be the fault of anyone else. In fact, I think it needs to be noted that in some situations, the fault and responsibility really lies with whom caused harm to the person who has a potential to be "triggered" I would even argue that TWs are taking responsibility away from abusers. Obviously not all things involve an abuser, but in some cases, they do.

[latraviata]

It came from me being tired of being told to shut up when I post on a topic, this isn't the first time.

She is the one that spent several days explaining away her posting of a HATE SITE as a source on FJ as being essentially a foible of getting old. During that conversation, her normally excellent English was dramatically different than her normal posts.

You can believe what you want, but her behavior here has changed recently and I think that is a cause for concern. Since people felt free to call me out in public, I didn't feel the need to PM her. I don't tend to PM people when a discussion is taking place in public, as a matter of course.

This is the third (or maybe fourth) thread that 3 people have managed to turn into a huge clusterfuck recently and quite frankly I'm sick of it. We are ALL better than this.

Edit to add: These are my PERSONAL opinions, just to be clear. That should be obvious since I'm not using the mod tag, but just so everyone is on the same page, I'm clarifying.

One more edit to add: I'm not flouncing this thread, but we are in crunch time getting stuff ready for downtime, so I likely won't be posting on any threads until after the site is brought back up. So please don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond right away if you (general) address me/my posts.

Oh yes, here we go again, I hastily posted a very questionable link and I have apologised for that, over and over again. I've aired an unwelcome opinion, so therefor I am a racist.

I was agitated indeed, because of the shocking lack of knowledge about Europe and its problems and a many of my answers are purely sarcastic and apparently in bad English. I sincerely doubt that you read my postings properly. You and some others decided that I a m a bigot and a racist, because I am not too keen on islam and its followers, who are btw not a protected species nor a race. I am a liberal and a democrat through and through and indeed I can't tolerate the intolerance towards Jews, gays, women, freedom of expression and freedom of religion and these values are being trampled for decades now. Perhaps not in the USA but certainly in Europe. Fundie christians in Europe are practically non existent. We have a few, but they get scorned and taunted as soon as they open their mouth (rightly so) and everybody is ok with that. God help you when you do exactly the same thing about islam, then all hell breaks loose. If you with your limited knowledge and American perspective on Europe find that obnoxious, and racist, well so be it.

I do not know exactly what the job description of a moderator is, but if you want to give me a ban based on your personal opinion (which is at least dubieus), by all means do so.

[PregnantPornStar]

With regard to mentioning personal experiences, I do agree that bringing too much emotion to the table makes it extremely difficult to have a conversation on a topic such as this. However, someone who shares an experience from their life is not necessarily emotional about the issue. I brought up a personal experience from a time when I appreciated (but did not expect) trigger warnings in order to illustrate a point. I am well beyond that period of time in my life. I am no longer emotional about the topic and I don't need trigger warnings. I am not hypersensitive to discussions of suicide. I have (and will continue) to use personal examples where it seems appropriate in order to illustrate a point.

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss personal experience and emotions, if you are not doing by replacing logic, fact and reason. However, it is disingenuous and manipulative to use your emotions or experiences to attack the opposing side of an argument/discussion/debate. Some posters are completely capable of this. Others are not.

I have expressed frustration, but it is not due to my hypersensitive nature or my "coddled mind". Trust me, it takes a lot to offend me. What I find frustrating is the argumentative strategies used by a few who seem quite hypersensitive to any criticism of their opinions or statements. Gross over-generalizations, conflating of issues, misuse of words, and othering of people is likely to lead to certain types of responses. For example, saying "the problem with Islam is..." is simply ridiculous and it should not take numerous pages of posts from numerous people to try to explain why. It would not fly if I said "the problem with fundie men is that they sexually assault women and children". Further, making factually inaccurate claims about a group or individual in order to attack or discredit them is unacceptable. When that happens the appropriate response is to correct the factual information. If I said "The Duggars subscribe to the FLDS belief system", I would fully expect someone to correct my error. Similarly, making false claims that a particular individual "subscribes to Wahhabism" or that "Muslims believe in stoning adulterous women" doesn't lead us any closer to understanding the problem or finding a solution. In reality, such statements do the exact opposite. It is frustrating when people bring up an important issue in a manner that basically assures a non-productive, misleading, and possibly contentious conversation.

Latraviata responded to this very well.

The generalization argument is tired and redundant. Firstly, I backed up my thoughts with studies and generalized from those. I doubt anyone wanted to read me rehash the entirety of all of the studies. Secondly, people "generally" generalize to simplify the conversation. I don't think anyone need to preface every comment with extensive specifications for the average person to understand the intent.

What I will give you, to be fair, is that I should have said "likely subscribes to Wahhabism" but I am not sure that really matters. Clearly he is an extremist, terrorist and a Muslim. He is a very bad dude. I am not incredibly concerned about what said individual is accused of. Stating it is a false claim is very likely wrong, as all fingers point to the claim not being false. I think there is enough evidence to make it likely.

The gross over-generalizations, conflating of issues, misuse of words, and othering of people has and will likely continue to illicit reactions that point out the flaws in the statements or arguments made. Telling people how they should feel about or react to a given situation or statement will likely elicit responses that demonstrate why your blanket statement is flawed in some way. I am not sure that anyone has suggested people change their opinions on a topic, so I am not sure where that idea comes from. I will suggest again that if people repeatedly and consistently don't like the responses they get to the comments they make, perhaps they should take a step back and reexamine their own behavior rather than asking the world to change to suit their personal needs.

You have expressed "Rage" and "frustration" in more than one post, which leads me back to my above point. I don't believe any of us with the dissenting opinions have suggested anyone should "feel" a certain way. I have seen you suggest I change my behavior because you seem to believe I feel badly about the responses I have received. It isn't that I "don't like" responses, but, I do disagree with responses or have found some to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Right now we are discussing the delivery of posts. Not the actual topic. This seems to be a theme with certain posters. It is redundant and tired.

The responses and reactions that are being labeled as "hypersensitive" and products of a "coddled mind" are readily predictable. If you don't mind the reactions you get when you voice your thoughts and opinions, by all means keep motoring forward expressing whatever you want in whatever manner suits your fancy. On the other hand, if you don't like the reactions you get when you voice your thoughts and opinions it might be worth considering how you might frame your comments in a different manner that would lead to a more productive conversation. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results - don't some say that is the definition of insanity? Voicing your thoughts and opinions in a manner that we can all readily predict will lead to reactions you don't like and then pissing and moaning and whining about it when those predictable reactions do indeed occur just really seems like an odd choice.

First, "hypersensitive" and "coddled" are terms that came from articles posted. So they were relevant.

I was going to avoid being incredibly snarky here but then thought, "why bother? This is too good"

Honestly, You and a few others are redundant. I feel like I am responding to the same thing with you over and over and over again. How many times have you and a few others screamed "over-generalization"? Do you think you shock me with your posts? Heck, you came out arguing the same shit in response to a post of mine while admitting you hadn't even read it.

Do you feel you contribute any insight into any topic? Truly, show me where you have done so in any of these threads. I am sure you have at some point and I am being dramatic, but I cannot think of any real insight or information that you have put forth that is not personal or emotional.

ETA - sorry for dragging a conversation from another thread into things to illustrate a point. However, the specifics or particular topic is not really important to what I am saying here. The same general principles apply.

Edited for riffles, riffles, and more riffles.

I also apologize for arguing about old conversations here, but, well, the point and all.

[PregnantPornStar]

It came from me being tired of being told to shut up when I post on a topic, this isn't the first time.

She is the one that spent several days explaining away her posting of a HATE SITE as a source on FJ as being essentially a foible of getting old. During that conversation, her normally excellent English was dramatically different than her normal posts.

You can believe what you want, but her behavior here has changed recently and I think that is a cause for concern. Since people felt free to call me out in public, I didn't feel the need to PM her. I don't tend to PM people when a discussion is taking place in public, as a matter of course.

This is the third (or maybe fourth) thread that 3 people have managed to turn into a huge clusterfuck recently and quite frankly I'm sick of it. We are ALL better than this.

Edit to add: These are my PERSONAL opinions, just to be clear. That should be obvious since I'm not using the mod tag, but just so everyone is on the same page, I'm clarifying.

One more edit to add: I'm not flouncing this thread, but we are in crunch time getting stuff ready for downtime, so I likely won't be posting on any threads until after the site is brought back up. So please don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond right away if you (general) address me/my posts.

I hope you don't believe this justifies your rude comments. Your insincere concern struck me as hateful and mean-spirited. Really, there is absolutely no justification.

[Beb]

I hope you don't believe this justifies your rude comments. Your insincere concern struck me as hateful and mean-spirited. Really, there is absolutely no justification.

You were called out AFTER you made the rude and insincere comments.

[Whoosh]

PPS, we can agree to disagree. I am not particularly concerned whether you approve of my posts or not to be honest. If you insist on lumping issues/people together and then making disparaging remarks or false statements about the larger group, you will likely keep getting the same types of responses you have been getting in several threads. You can insist it is an issue with me if you so choose, but if I never post to FJ again I strongly suspect you will still get the same reactions from numerous other posters. For now I will simply put you on ignore, as I agree that engaging in conversations with you is painfully redundant and seems to lead nowhere.

[FundieFarmer]

FundieFarmer, I think part of the difference is that I have a life-long chronic condition, not PTSD. For me, diabetes is a good analogy of how I live. Just like a diabetic has to take into consideration their blood sugar when they choose to eat something, I have to gauge my resources at any given time. I have OCD. Something that may be fine when I have high resources may cause issues when I have low resources. It's not about "healing" but about management.

The thing that has always frustrated me about much of the discussion of TWs is that critics tend to say "Well, if you really have a problem, you should go to therapy." (HEnce my frustration with the idea that people with mental illness need to get "normal.") In my opinion, what people with mental illness really need is their own agency. I have the right to information needed to make an informed decision (hence my feeling we should call it content information) and then I get to make a decision and live with the consequences.

I've ignored content information and had it come back to bite me on the butt. I have no one to blame but myself there. But I've also had people knowingly withhold information that might have affected my decisions, because they thought I shouldn't be "coddled" for my illness. To me, that's as bad as someone saying "You can't watch/hear/see that because it might trigger your issues." There's no difference, because both deny me te right to set my own goals and make my own decisions for myself.

Ah, okay, I see what you're saying. I think we are looking at it from opposite sides of the cloth. I looked into OCD triggers so I could understand better, and I think I have at least a general comprehension now, though I know it is only cursory. I have had depression and anxiety for as long as I can remember, but for the most part, I don't run into anything that sets that off for me. My experience with TWs has only been with assault/PTSD type of things.

I don't mean to come across that I'm saying trigger warnings aren't necessary, or appreciated. I think it's cruel that people don't give you warnings because "you shouldn't be coddled". That's not up to them. I don't mean to sound like that, either. When you say people should have their own agency, I agree. To me, that means being equipped with both the trigger warnings, and tools to address the issues when they come up without warning, especially in situations that can't be avoided. I think you gain those tools as (general) you become more used to your condition. I think about it from a PTSD perspective, and how at the start I had no idea of how to deal, so I used TWs to avoid. But I see it from what you're saying as a management tool. TWs hold different value depending on where you are in your journey.

I agree that it is so frustrating when people just say, "Oh, go to therapy." It's a crude way to write off someone's problems without investing in them. Furthermore, just because someone goes to therapy doesn't mean therapy solved all of the issues. Therapy is one option, but it isn't always for everyone, or for every situation (not to mention that finding the right therapist can be a job on its own).

I don't think I'm making any sense. I'm sorry, guys! Words are hard and there's a lot happening on my end. I probably should've refrained until words made more sense :lol: Plus, Terrie, thanks for having this conversation with me. I'm glad to learn from you and glad to have an awesomely intelligent FJ conversation I've come to love :)

[HerNameIsBuffy]

The gross over-generalizations, conflating of issues

Do you feel you contribute any insight into any topic? Truly, show me where you have done so in any of these threads. I am sure you have at some point and I am being dramatic, but I cannot think of any real insight or information that you have put forth that is not personal or emotional.

This is the most hateful fucking thing I've seen on FJ. That you were capable of calling Curious out and a few posts after ready to aim and fire this at someone else? Wow.

I'd point out the irony of you railing in post after post about the coddling and censorship and how unreasonable it is to police speech for others feelings interspersed with you bitching attempting to micromanage the way everyone else posts because of how you feel about their tone...but I'm pretty sure the concept is beyond you.

And yeah, that was patronizing so it's beneath you...which is why I am also not pointing out how I'm not surprised you don't understand the value of wooshes contributions because it's clear you have difficulty with nuanced conversation.

Seriously if you can objectively read your last several posts and not see the glaring hypocracy then your cognitive dissonance is spectacularly entrenched.

[Beb]

This is the most hateful fucking thing I've seen on FJ. That you were capable of calling Curious out and a few posts after ready to aim and fire this at someone else? Wow.

I'd point out the irony of you railing in post after post about the coddling and censorship and how unreasonable it is to police speech for others feelings interspersed with you bitching attempting to micromanage the way everyone else posts because of how you feel about their tone...but I'm pretty sure the concept is beyond you.

And yeah, that was patronizing so it's beneath you...which is why I am also not pointing out how I'm not surprised you don't understand the value of wooshes contributions because it's clear you have difficulty with nuanced conversation.

Seriously if you can objectively read your last several posts and not see the glaring hypocracy then your cognitive dissonance is spectacularly entrenched.

Yeah, PPS. You just need to remember to avoid replying (especially keep in mind to avoid replying in like manner) to others who have been fucking hateful to you.

Good grief.

I think I'm beginning to see another of those common denominator things....or maybe it's just a few people who want to be able to say whatever they want to others, and those others are really "hateful" if they aren't rolling over and playing dead.

What's ironic is, everyone here has done nothing more than express opinions, some having to defend themselves and even their mental health, ffs.

Nice.

[latraviata]

This is the most hateful fucking thing I've seen on FJ. That you were capable of calling Curious out and a few posts after ready to aim and fire this at someone else? Wow.

I'd point out the irony of you railing in post after post about the coddling and censorship and how unreasonable it is to police speech for others feelings interspersed with you bitching attempting to micromanage the way everyone else posts because of how you feel about their tone...but I'm pretty sure the concept is beyond you.

And yeah, that was patronizing so it's beneath you...which is why I am also not pointing out how I'm not surprised you don't understand the value of wooshes contributions because it's clear you have difficulty with nuanced conversation.

Seriously if you can objectively read your last several posts and not see the glaring hypocracy then your cognitive dissonance is spectacularly entrenched.

Being a professional victim and using big words isn't a prerequisite for a nuanced comment.

[sawasdee]

Thank you Woosh, I am delighted that after so many years, finally somebody is able to tell me how to have a proper discussion!!!

Te racist/islamophobe spell doesn't work anymore, nor does the generalisation card.

We have passed that station. Gone are the days that we started our criticism with, "I know they are many hardworking law abiding....." I am talking about the ones........Everybody with half a brain understands that one prefers to address a problem and it doesn't always apply to everybody, to a hell of a lot it does though, but not everybody! Anyway thanks for your sermon, lecture, you choose.

Btw, how did we go from Zsu's Rubenesque appearance to your depression???

I don't know if the intent of this comment was to be breathtakingly rude and condescending to someone who was making a genuine and polite contribution to the discussion, or whether the fact that English is not the mother tongue of the writer has led to a tone that was not meant. I truly hope it was the latter.

[latraviata]

I don't know if the intent of this comment was to be breathtakingly rude and condescending to someone who was making a genuine and polite contribution to the discussion, or whether the fact that English is not the mother tongue of the writer has led to a tone that was not meant. I truly hope it was the latter.

]\

No, it wasn't.

[sawasdee]

Well, I think that sums up the depths to which some posters have taken this thread.I'm going to leave, since I enjoy a polite, reasoned discussion, and passionately held views, but not gratuitous rudeness and egregious hostility. A shame, as good points have been made from both viewpoints, that it descended to the level of playground insults.

[latraviata]

Well, I think that sums up the depths to which some posters have taken this thread.I'm going to leave, since I enjoy a polite, reasoned discussion, and passionately held views, but not gratuitous rudeness and egregious hostility. A shame, as good points have been made from both viewpoints, that it descended to the level of playground insults.

Do they really discuss TW, SP and PC on the playground??