Some people are jerks, but in my experience the great majority of the usage of trigger warnings is either helpful and reasonable or entirely innocuous.
I don’t think you should limit the abuse of micro-aggression’s to jerks alone. I suspect you may disagree, but you may have noticed we are living in politicized times; I do think social liberals with a political bent do abuse the concept of micro-aggression. That’s not a slight on politicized social liberals in particular, but political animals in general.
I don’t think I ever called you part of the anti-PC brigade. Making BS up to try to discredit what I say isn’t a good way to get real… gah, see how tiring this is?
You think that people who make baseless accusations of bigotry are the problem, I think people who overuse the term “politically correct” are the problem. I don’t care if the term is “rehabilitated,” since as I’ve said, it’s never been used as anything but a pejorative in my lifetime.
But, supposing for the sake of the thread, society wants to rehabilitate the phrase. Where does the onus fall?
Especially among bigots.
It’s been used as early as 1793. While it only came into common use in the last 60 years or so, it’s a whole lot older than that.
But people don’t say “that’s breaking political correctness”. When faced with a shitty, bigoted statement, like, say, “There’s no such thing as a woman with a penis, just men with tits,” They say, “That’s a shitty, bigoted thing to say”. And then the immediate turnaround is, “Stop being so politically correct”. Because that is literally the only way “politically correct” is used these days. It’s a snarl word. A way to shut down criticism of any statement that may be offensive or hateful or bigoted. To this day, I maintain that essentially the definitive take on “political correctness” can be found in this youtube video: virtually the only way the phrase is ever used is as a shield for bigots who don’t want to be called on their bigotry. Well, okay, that and Bill Maher. :rolleyes:
(Note: the rest of this is not directed to you, specifically, Quartz, but rather the thread as a whole.)
So why “rehabilitate” it? As others have pointed out, the people who use it have absolutely no interest in it being anything other than a snarl word, and the people who don’t use it… don’t use it. What needs to be rehabilitated is how we think about the concepts people label political correctness. That we stop letting people get away with this bullshit tactic of saying something stupid and bigoted, and defending themselves by accusing others of being “politically correct”. That we call out shit like, well, this:
“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”
“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”
Because what is being asked of Trump in that scenario is not “why weren’t you politically correct”. It was “Why did you say so many misogynistic things?” And Trump’s response was to accuse her of calling him “politically incorrect”.
So, in other words, this exchange between a journalist and a candidate for the president of the united states happened:
K: “You said misogynist thing X, Y, and Z. How does this gel with the temperament of the presidency?”
T: “Stop being so politically correct.”
How the fuck does that even begin to count as a defense? Why the fuck did anyone let him get away with that? The correct response to that is, “You’re not being politically incorrect, you’re just being a douchebag, now answer the fucking question.” And this is literally the only way “political correctness” is used nowadays. Rehabilitate it? No. String it up by the ankles, skin it, gut it, draw and quarter it, and dump the remains in the latrine where they belong. In other words, we need to collectively cut the shit.
By all means, let’s call out the reactionary morons who overstep their bounds. Let’s to the guy who got fired over “donglegate”. Let’s try to tone it down, and not immediately launch into an all-week shame-a-thon when someone gets accidentally misgendered (and let’s be clear - if you have a thick beard and look like a guy from top to bottom and get offended when people you don’t know accidentally refer to you as “he”, that is probably your problem). But let’s not even begin to pretend that these scolds are the biggest fucking problem even on social media. Donglegate got two people fired, and only one of those people got “death threats, rape threats, a flood of racist and sexually violent speech, a DDOS attack on her employer[…]”. Gamergate was and a long-term harassment campaign aimed at any female game dev or commentator. Milo still essentially has a troll army that would put fucking Mordor to shame. But somehow, a few of the Tumblr set complaining about “cultural appropriation” is more of an issue than an actively growing neo-nazi movement online, whose figurehead holds an important government position and ran the president’s campaign. What a staggering loss of perspective.
Of course they must. But IMHO it’s best to let bigots, racists, etc out themselves.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
“controlling behavior”? That sounds like one of those liberal buzzwords only heard in the groves of Academe.
I don’t generally say “PC”. I say rude or stupid or racist or xenophobic or homophobic. Actually–“stupid” generally works best. Or “Republican”–although I’m old enough to know when that was not the case.
You’ve got the right to say anything you want. And everybody else has the right to answer you any way they wish. (I generally don’t approve of violence–but I don’t weep for famous neo-Nazis getting punched in the face. However, you’re obviously just an internet tough guy. Poor little snowflake.)
First, since I never declare anything non-PC, nor does any leftist at all, it’s nice that we’re not engaged in “controlling behavior.”
Did you mean to say that declaring something racist, or sexist, or bigoted, is controlling behavior? Because goddamn, that’d be a ridiculous thing to say.
If someone says something rude, I can simultaneously respect their legal right to say it, and exercise my legal right to respond to it. There’s a real irony in telling me what I’m “supposed” to do, because doing otherwise would be “controlling behavior.” What on earth do you think telling me what I’m supposed to do is?
What good does it do to let them out themselves if we are not allowed to challenege their statements.
Are you saying that if someone says, “Niggers are all inferior to white people!” we should just consider him to be outed and go on our way?
You don’t think that such things should be challenged?
Certainly won’t. And didn’t. I was just reiterating exactly what you said.
You said “No, you’re supposed to respect their right to say what you deem to be rude.”
I replied.
“Declaring that we must respect your right to speak whatever you want without reply is controlling behavior.”
Is it the “without reply” part that you disagree with?
So, are you saying that it is or is not ok to reply to such speech?
Yes, because you could be wrong, and by invoking the shibboleth of racism (or whatever) you’re trying to prevent dialogue. Compare “I think that’s racist.” with “That’s racist!” See the difference?
The article you linked to says, “The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage.”
If you read the excerpt from 1793, you’ll see the meaning is completely innocuous.
Telling me I’m trying to prevent dialogue is a Kreskin fail. I’m doing no such thing. You, however, are explicitly trying to prevent dialogue by telling me I shouldn’t say that.
I do see the difference between “I think that’s racist” and “that’s racist”, but it’s a trivial, irrelevant difference: the first explicitly and superfluously declares that it’s an opinion, whereas the second leaves out this obvious information. Why you think the first won’t shut down dialog, but you think the second will terrify bigots into silence, is mysterious, and says more about your opinion of the timidity of bigots than it says anything about me.
I think you’re missing my point.
It’s not the presence of trigger warnings that people object to. Nobody I’ve ever heard of would have an issue with something having a trigger warning for say… PTSD vets or sexual assault survivors. That’s reasonable; being exposed to things like that without proper preparation can be pretty traumatic (as witnessed by my friend’s dad reverting to his Vietnam War instincts in the movie theater during “Forrest Gump” because he wasn’t expecting the firefight scenes, nor was he expecting them to be so realistic.)
What people think is absurd are trigger warnings about merely unpleasant things, not things that are legitimate triggers for mental trauma. Like sexism, for example. What in the world is reading a novel with a sexist character going to trigger in anyone? If it’s that big of a deal to them, they really need mental health care, not a trigger warning. Similarly, mentions of the various “isms” in a work hardly need trigger warnings- they’re merely concepts, and what sort of mental jellyfish needs a warning about a concept in a work?
I guess ultimately what I’m trying to get at is that trivial trigger warnings devalue the legitimate ones. If they were limited to things that legitimately might trigger someone, then I don’t think it’s an issue. But when they’re used for people to merely avoid having to read or see anything that might be uncomfortable, it both devalues the legitimately useful trigger warnings, and it perpetuates a notion that nobody should have to do anything uncomfortable, which is patently stupid, especially in an academic context. Students *should *be forced to confront new ideas and often uncomfortable ones,not be enabled to cower like ninnies at the mere mention of sexism or racism or other sillier things.
So, what you are saying is that we need to ask permission of you or of your “acceptable trigger warnings” committee before someone can decide that a scene, or a topic may cause some individuals enough discomfort that a mention of the material ahead of time is warranted?
How do we make such decisions?
For instance, I saw Forrest Gump, and it didn’t bother me at all. How can you prove that your dad’s friend didn’t just need some mental health care? Because I do not agree with them, putting trigger warnings on that movie seems to devalue the legitimacy of trigger warnings, to me.
Maybe some of these people are getting mental health care, and being subjected to unpleasantness with no warning may not make their progress go well.
I’m a pretty strong progressive sympathizer, and I was dismayed when the word ‘intersectionality’ sprouted legs and started running across my Facebook feed.
I’d seen it once or twice, maybe, but not enough to really familiarize with it. But I knew the Conservosphere would point to it as an example of liberals being so silly they beat each other up with abstruse academic jargon, or a case where they were coming up with new ways to tell Republicans they’re racist. And that’s exactly what happened.
Yes, there is a real liability with leftist academic jargon escaping into the wild and making liberals look like effete, out-of-touch thought police. It’s been happening since the late 60’s and I don’t see any signs of imminent insights regarding self-awareness.
Well I’m gonna object to that, I’ve seen plenty of objections to sexual assault trigger warnings. Indeed, the article I referred to was one of them (link no longer works, unfortunately)
Sure, absurd things are absurd. There have been very high profile instances of students complaining about dumb shit in the name of being triggered. I’d argue, though, that I don’t really care. I don’t encounter these things in my daily life, and if I did, I’d just shrug it off. Because, who cares? The only people who really seem to care are the students who complain about dumb stuff on campuses (students complaining about dumb stuff?! Call the press!), the poor administrators who need to walk the tightrope, and millions upon millions of conservatives who spread these few-and-far-between stories like wildfire because it happily reinforces their worldview that millenials/liberals/academics are a bunch of weak-ass pussies who are clearly inferior.
I personally don’t give a shit about that particular microaggression but the follow up question of “where are you really from” or “you know what I mean” or “where are your people from” is pretty common. And frankly, I don’t think people are always intending to be obnoxious. They may just be oblivious because when tell them where my parents were born, they go on to say much they love the food, etc.
Like I said, microaggression are not intentional and should not be treated as such but some very sensitive people do.
I havea friend who is a native New Zealnder and he gets everything from Indian to British. Most people guess Aussie. Most americans can’t distinguish between the the aussie accent and the harsher kiwi accent.
Once more: you’re very unlikely to encounter those absurd ones in their natural state, but you’re very likely to encounter them in media, because they make good stories. Absurd trigger warnings are like terrorism: people are far more terrified of them than statistically they ought to be.
Declaring that declaring something non-PC (or PC) is controlling behavior is controlling behavior.
Hell, even I find it hard some of the time!