It might be being extra-cautious, but at the very worst they wasted about 10 seconds with the warning. IMO there’s no point worrying or being annoyed by possibly extraneous trigger warnings – it’s basically just saying “hey guys, we’re going to talk about X, Y, and Z, which may involve ABC kind of language”.
I wasn’t worried or annoyed. I was surprised. I had heard about extra-cautious trigger warnings on this MB before, but I hadn’t actually encountered any. It was more along the lines of some mundane pointless stuff that I needed to share. 
I’m sure there are people who regard the word faggot as the equivalent of words like cunt or nigger; a hate word so foul they don’t want to hear it.
OK, but surely we can imagine, since it happens all the time, people who want to participate in an event that’s ostensibly about a certain cause, in order to bring attention to another cause. So they show up at the pride parade or the anti-war march and start shouting about freeing Mumia. I mean, they’re technically supporting pride, I guess, by showing up, but all they do is try to hijack the event to their pet cause.
So shouldn’t it be more like the whole, “this scene contains language that some may find objectional. Viewer discretion advised”, maybe?
I suppose those people shouldn’t listen to gay authors being interviewed about their autobiographies then.
I’m troubled by the fact that a simple Jewish star was assumed to be “about” Israel. Even worse is that it was conflated with particular set of opinions regarding Israel and Palestine.
The Star of David is the symbol of Jews worldwide, and we’re quite a diverse lot - in nationality, race, ethnicity, political opinion, and anything else you can imagine. Many Jews are not pro-Israel and/or don’t have any particular interest in Israeli matters.
To me, the only thing that flag implies is “here are some Jewish LGBTQ people/allies.” It says nothing about Israel, and only an anti-Semitic shitbag would assume it did.
Maybe the group with the flags does advocate on behalf of both LGBTQ rights and Israel. And one can oppose Israel, the country, without animus against Jews, the religion or ethnic group. So I don’t have any objection to the march organizers telling the group with the flags that they did not approve of them taking a stance for Israel in the march.
But that’s not what they were doing. Just waving flags with a rainbow and star is not, by itself, any sort of advocacy for Israel. My reading of it is “We’re Jewish, and we’re pro-gay-rights”, just like the Episcopal group with the rainbow fish was saying “We’re Christian, and we’re pro-gay-rights”. Both messages should be acceptable.
If someone showed up and was behaving as you described then I could understand organizers not being happy with that. You do understand that is most definitely NOT what these people did? They showed up with a rainbow flag with a modification to it that indicated they were Jewish, gay and supportive of the cause. No different than marchers from other groups identifying as gay Christians or members of PFLAG. Yet these marchers were singled out and told they weren’t welcome specifically because they were proud of their Jewish heritage.
Exactly right, in particular the part I made into bold text. These people are ignorant shitbags and an embarrassment to the LGBTQ+ community.
Exactly. Whatever someone might feel about some actions of the state of Israel, to most liberal people it’s pretty much the definition of racism to then hold all Jews collectively responsible.
But in the identity politics and hierarchy of oppression of the academic radical left, “reverse racism” doesn’t exist, since racism is all about hegemony and privilege. You cannot be racist toward somebody in the oppressor class, somebody who is considered to hold power and privilege through their racial or social identity. And since Israel is officially deemed to be an oppressor (apparently recent events supersede the Holocaust), this kind of thing cannot be anti-Semitic.
As a corollary, Palestinian society is given a pass on its dismal record on LGBT rights - because, well, they are obviously too preoccupied by the process of oppression by Israel that you can’t expect them to behave in a civilized way toward their own LGBT community.
This is really the way these people think, and it’s not just fringe groups.
I don’t think that’s correct. It seemed clear from the linked article that some people in the parade were not super-happy with Zionism and by extension, I would guess, not big fans of the state of Israel and its policy vis-a-vis Palestanians.
Surely folks can understand that on one hand there is being pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionism, and on a totally different hand, not even attached to the same body, there is anti-Semitism. They are not the same thing. After all there are Jews who are anti-Zionist.
Now, a decent number of anti-Semites may happen to be anti-Zionist, too. But that doesn’t mean that people who are anti-Zionist are anti-Semitic.
(Too late to add on edit)
I* do* feel, however this whole this precious, vulnerable snowflake thing where people need “trigger warnings” etc. is utter nonsense. If a Star of David makes you feel all icky then you are way too sensitive.
I was merely saying that the people, while being one kind of fucked-up (snowflake-itis), are not necessarily a whole other worse kind of fucked-up (anti-Semitic).
I assume that their intent was to show that one can be gay and Jewish (maybe going out on a limb, here?).
Would you similarly condemn people with banners to the effect that one can be both Muslim and gay, or Christian (*) and gay?
Maybe you should hold off on lecturing people what Pride celebrations are about until you’ve spent, like, five whole minute at one? Because there’s no way anyone who wrote what you just did has ever actually seen one in real life.
Well the Christians did have that ugly-ass green in their rainbow fish.
I don’t know man. A five whole minute is a long time.
Any follow-up story on this? One would hope that the organizers (or whoever) who threw out the Jewish folks have apologized and learned the error of their ways. I suppose we will, at a minimum, find out next year what the deal is.
The other ironic thing here is that the Jewish folks were thrown out because their flag made some people feel “unsafe”, but how did being thrown out of the event make the Jewish people feel? Safe?
This particular parade was held by a group that is “anti-zionist” and “pro-palestinian”, so I doubt any apology will be forthcoming.
Yes, of course. I’m just saying the radically inclusive ethic is going to crash and burn at some point.
Especially if your zeal to be inclusive means you have to exclude some people in the name of including others. “We include everyone, which means your kind is not welcome here.”
If only there was some way for people to know ahead of time what kind of language was going to used in an upcoming interview.
Oh wait…
Seriously, how is this any different than putting a warning at the beginning of a movie or television show telling people about content some viewers might find objectionable? It seems to me the only difference between a helpful parental guide and a ridiculous trigger warning is what somebody happens to personally object to.
That’s a fair objection. I would feel the organizers of the event could legitimately ban a group if they had reason to think the group was trying to hijack the event.
But such a standard should only apply over hijackings not just the possession of different views. Nobody should be told they can’t march for gay rights unless they also support vegetarianism. Or, to give a conservative example, nobody should be told they can’t march against gun control laws unless they also oppose abortions.