Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,600,682 times
Reputation: 5697
Advertisements
This includes different viewpoints as well, but the immediate topic is disparagement based on certain widely unpopular traits – being weak, timid, sensitive, eccentric, or strikingly poor in judgment. We all have these traits to certain degrees and we all get triggered by certain acts or expressions – including the bashers themselves. This makes the bashers of such people hypocrites. The Politics and Controversies subforum has no shortage of bashers hurling insults and other disrespectful behavior at people who disagree with others' political viewpoints, so I think this topic could apply here.
These bashers of the “weak”, “weird”, “odd”, “stupid”, easily triggered, etc., they just want it both ways – have it OK to be annoyed, even disgusted, by these kinds of people, even to the point of lacking sympathy or compassion for these people; YET have it NOT ok for those getting harsh disrespect to be angry or resentful, even though these indignities are much worse than merely hearing or seeing people with the said irritating and annoying traits.
They also want it OK to disrespect - even demean - people with these traits, YET they also want it not ok for those they demean to defend themselves against the harsh treatment despite that having those traits alone obviously doesn’t signify *intent* to hurt or harm others, or degrade their dignity – or even the mildest of personal attacks on the person at all.
To be consistent, the bashers must admit either:
(a) that that the harshly disrespected have the same right to be angry and resentful due to ill treatment as the bashers themselves do when they are irritated (perhaps triggered?) at displays of weakness, cowardice, timidity, oddity, and stupidity (however defined); OR
(b) admit that they themselves are being shame-worthy when they are irritated (triggered?) at displays of the said traits, especially when the sight of which generates only a trivial discomfort compared to being verbally degraded, especially abused.
The bashers also must admit either that the highly disrespected are not obligated to just sit there and take verbal abuse or that bashers themselves are being “crybabies”, “snowflakes” etc, when people call them out on their poor behavior toward the people they disrespect.
Though this actually needs its own thread, the fact that it’s supposedly OK for bashers to get highly, even aggressively, irritated at displays of clearly unintentional shortcomings of others shows, even in trivial matters, shows that holding the victims of their attacks responsible for their own feelings puts a lot of unreasonable expectations on the people they attack. So this is more proof of the double-standards of the bashers.
This includes different viewpoints as well, but the immediate topic is disparagement based on certain widely unpopular traits – being weak, timid, sensitive, eccentric, or strikingly poor in judgment. We all have these traits to certain degrees and we all get triggered by certain acts or expressions – including the bashers themselves.
Of course, but the millennial generation is unique in that being sensitive to minor slights is cultivated as a virtue. To be aware of "microaggressions" and demanding of "safe spaces" free of contrary ideas is seen as a mark of enlightenment. Not that all millennials are like this, but it does seem to be a dominant theme on college campuses.
Yes, those who throw the insults are generally guilty of being what they accuse of others. Worse, they're of the Milo mentality where they think "triggering" others by trolling them is an acceptable replacement for civil political discourse.
Yes, those who throw the insults are generally guilty of being what they accuse of others. Worse, they're of the Milo mentality where they think "triggering" others by trolling them is an acceptable replacement for civil political discourse.
Why triggering in quotes? It's the vocabulary of the snowflakes themselves, not people like Milo who criticize them. Snowflakes will claim to be triggered by what is, to most people, ordinary political discourse. They do this as a means of shutting down debates they are unequipped to engage in.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,600,682 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Of course, but the millennial generation is unique in that being sensitive to minor slights is cultivated as a virtue. To be aware of "microaggressions" and demanding of "safe spaces" free of contrary ideas is seen as a mark of enlightenment. Not that all millennials are like this, but it does seem to be a dominant theme on college campuses.
It doesn't matter how sensitive they may or may not be. All that matters is that they are sensitive to it due to life experiences, and we should be careful about our *tone, framing, and word choice* (NOT in terms of the substance of the argument, big difference). Especially if practically any comment or response about something can be framed in good taste. Besides, if anything, almost anything (even non-governmental calls to reign in unnecessarily aggressive speech) can be called a "microaggression". Free speech absoultists are pretty short-fused about anyone limiting their right to "speak their mind", "keep it real", i.e. be as demeaning as I want to be, no matter how much I would retaliate if someone spoke like that to me.
As for "safe spaces". I say We need both safe spaces and philosophically open ones, as skeptic Dan Fincke put it. The basic idea of the article is that open philosophical spaces are in effect "free speech safe spaces", spaces where to debate the issues in the open. "Safe Spaces" (TM) are places where express their real selves without condemnation, belittlement, and judgment; and also find like-minded people with the same experiences, plus organize themselves and their arguments for debate in the public space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510
Yes, those who throw the insults are generally guilty of being what they accuse of others. Worse, they're of the Milo mentality where they think "triggering" others by trolling them is an acceptable replacement for civil political discourse.
Agreed, Natural. As I said, the bashers implicitly claim the right to be irritated at others and express that disrespect at others due to some trivial aspects of a person (and why would they hurl insults if they weren't irritated in the first place? but see next what I say). OR, they are just using insults as a tactic to get people so upset they can't think straight, break their train of thought -- a cheap way of scoring "debating" points. Plus, the bashers may also be trying to use an appeal to personal distaste - i.e. implicitly "THIS person has *that* fault, and therefore deserves even the most demeaning verbal abuse you can dish out at him or her" (also appeals to basebrain personal distaste of those traits too).
Why triggering in quotes? It's the vocabulary of the snowflakes themselves, not people like Milo who criticize them. Snowflakes will claim to be triggered by what is, to most people, ordinary political discourse. They do this as a means of shutting down debates they are unequipped to engage in.
Well, when I saw him on Bill Maher he told the crowd "You're so easily triggered!" after one of his outrageous comments and giggled like a schoolgirl. So that's where I got it from...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Agreed, Natural. As I said, the bashers implicitly claim the right to be irritated at others and express that disrespect at others due to some trivial aspects of a person (and why would they hurl insults if they weren't irritated in the first place? but see next what I say). OR, they are just using insults as a tactic to get people so upset they can't think straight, break their train of thought -- a cheap way of scoring "debating" points. Plus, the bashers may also be trying to use an appeal to personal distaste - i.e. implicitly "THIS person has *that* fault, and therefore deserves even the most demeaning verbal abuse you can dish out at him or her" (also appeals to basebrain personal distaste of those traits too).
Agreed, and it all goes back to the polarization which permeates both/all sides of the political spectrum in the US nowadays...if you have an opinion on a personal subject you're automatically lumped in with "them" or "us" with no grey area in between. No one listens to each other any more, let alone respecting others opinions.
This includes different viewpoints as well, but the immediate topic is disparagement based on certain widely unpopular traits – being weak, timid, sensitive, eccentric, or strikingly poor in judgment. We all have these traits to certain degrees and we all get triggered by certain acts or expressions – including the bashers themselves. This makes the bashers of such people hypocrites. The Politics and Controversies subforum has no shortage of bashers hurling insults and other disrespectful behavior at people who disagree with others' political viewpoints, so I think this topic could apply here.
These bashers of the “weak”, “weird”, “odd”, “stupid”, easily triggered, etc., they just want it both ways – have it OK to be annoyed, even disgusted, by these kinds of people, even to the point of lacking sympathy or compassion for these people; YET have it NOT ok for those getting harsh disrespect to be angry or resentful, even though these indignities are much worse than merely hearing or seeing people with the said irritating and annoying traits.
They also want it OK to disrespect - even demean - people with these traits, YET they also want it not ok for those they demean to defend themselves against the harsh treatment despite that having those traits alone obviously doesn’t signify *intent* to hurt or harm others, or degrade their dignity – or even the mildest of personal attacks on the person at all.
To be consistent, the bashers must admit either:
(a) that that the harshly disrespected have the same right to be angry and resentful due to ill treatment as the bashers themselves do when they are irritated (perhaps triggered?) at displays of weakness, cowardice, timidity, oddity, and stupidity (however defined); OR
(b) admit that they themselves are being shame-worthy when they are irritated (triggered?) at displays of the said traits, especially when the sight of which generates only a trivial discomfort compared to being verbally degraded, especially abused.
The bashers also must admit either that the highly disrespected are not obligated to just sit there and take verbal abuse or that bashers themselves are being “crybabies”, “snowflakes” etc, when people call them out on their poor behavior toward the people they disrespect.
Though this actually needs its own thread, the fact that it’s supposedly OK for bashers to get highly, even aggressively, irritated at displays of clearly unintentional shortcomings of others shows, even in trivial matters, shows that holding the victims of their attacks responsible for their own feelings puts a lot of unreasonable expectations on the people they attack. So this is more proof of the double-standards of the bashers.
Is this just a long way of telling us you are a snowflake?
Why triggering in quotes? It's the vocabulary of the snowflakes themselves, not people like Milo who criticize them. Snowflakes will claim to be triggered by what is, to most people, ordinary political discourse. They do this as a means of shutting down debates they are unequipped to engage in.
I think I know a certain snowflake who needs some time in a safe space...
I'll send crayons and hot cocoa for the Snowflakes....because I care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
