When I first read this story a week ago, it was SO dumb that I had to look deeper. Turns out that it is actually that dumb, but not because the SJWs in question actually believe in this reasoning, but because they are actively out to end a certain type of business run mostly by Asian-Americans. This is good old fashioned Asian vs. African-American big city racial tension.
The issue at hand is that these businesses encourage people to just buy alcohol and get drunk and loiter. According to the commission, local regulations require such businesses to serve food and have seating for a certain number of people. The city doesn’t want these types of businesses there, and having failed to drive them out through enfocement of current regulations, is making new ones that endanger the Asian-American owners, thus driving them out a different way.
I’d note that this is a city that has a history of using regulation to penalize businesses they don’t like and to facilitate businesses they do. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic went uninspected for decades, while city commissioners are doing stings on liquor convenience stores and basically threatening the owners with death.
I know this doesn’t matter, and it’s just a random idiotic tweet by a random unverified idiot teenage girl with less than a thousand followers, but…she’s white too! And the odds that she isn’t on good terms with at least one white dog owner are infinitesimal. There is literally zero chance she believes what she tweeted, or anything close to it. It’s just sad, performative, racial self-flagellation. “I’m not like the others! Love me! Love me!” I’m seeing more and more of it online, especially among young white people. Why? It’s just creepy and weird.
I agree that she’s not posting something she actually believes, but I get much more of a “trolling conservative snowflakes” vibe off of that than deep-set racial self-loathing.
Seems to have worked, too, given that someone at PJ Media squeezed an entire column out of it.
Some of them tend to be quite amusing, in Darwin Awards-Light kind of way. Like, “how the fuck does this person manage to get dressed in the morning?” Plus sometimes it’s worth it for the comments.
On the other hand, it’s not a liberal thing, necessarily. Stupid people come in all shapes and sizes.
Are you kidding? That’s most of PJMedia’s business model.
When liberal political blogs want to post outrage about conservatives saying something horrifically stupid and ridiculous, they can select from hundreds of pronouncements by the POTUS. When conservative political blogs want to post outrage about liberals saying something horrifically stupid and ridiculous, they have to scrape the barrel for occasional fringe radical activists or attention-seeking teenagers on social media.
Eh, it’s just a preprint of a study that finds no psychological benefit to trauma survivors from so-called trigger warnings. Which is very not-surprising, given that serious psychological trauma is an extremely complicated and individual issue that you can’t just slap a generic emotional band-aid on. Anybody who ever thought that routine “trigger warnings” could reliably avert suffering on the part of trauma survivors was being way overoptimistic.
Simple content warnings, on the other hand, like specific movie ratings, are very useful for the stated purpose of letting people know what to expect. If a reading or viewing is going to contain profanity or depictions of gory violence or sexual innuendo or spiders or anything else that a lot of people really don’t like—whether or not their dislike is associated with actual diagnosed psychological trauma—then it makes perfect sense to give people advance notice about it.
Depends. I appreciate if it’s something like, “heads up, this is a link to a snuff film, or a video of puppies being tossed into a wood chipper.”
But “this link contains something negative like someone yelling at someone”, then please. Perhaps you shouldn’t be on the internet. You know? You can’t always know EVERYONE’S triggers.
Recently I started watching an episode of some show (I don’t remember what, but it was one of the shows from a streaming service that releases the whole series at once.) At the very beginning of the episode they put up a warning on the screen that the episode contains content related to suicide. It was of course a spoiler on a plot point about one of the regular characters. So thanks a lot, show. :rolleyes::mad:
I saw this earlier and had some questions. This study consisted of trigger warnings on fictional writing. Does this carry over to other forms of writing, other types of media, or interaction situations?
I understand the logic of the findings showing that the trigger warnings themselves cause a negative reaction, but I wonder if it would be helpful in more directly confronting situations. To me, fictional accounts of similar trauma may have the least impact in comparison to in class discussions, videos, or written accounts of actual events.
I do not have any special insight or training, but I don’t know if we can generalize all trigger warning utility from this one study.
The study authors cite previous work that looked at the effects on untraumatized or mixed samples. If this is study is replicable, I would agree that it does not support putting trigger warnings on literature. Of course, I don’t think trigger warnings are actually used for that.
It just occurred to me that while trigger warnings are considered SJW bullshit that limits free speech and ruins the children, content warning has been mandated on movies and music for decades in the name of moral purity to protect the children.
So, black people tickets = $20
White people tickets = $40
This was allegedly meant to represent the racial wealth gap in the United States. The organisers reversed the policy after the predictable backlash, suggesting the whole thing was a publicity stunt. Though whether it was supposed to benefit Afrofuture or Trump’s re-election campaign remains in question.
Worth noting, the study is also limited to examining the impact of content warnings on people who are then forced to consume that content. This is not necessarily an uninteresting question, but it also presupposes that it is the sole use of content warnings. A study demonstrating that “contains dairy” does not reduce symptoms of lactose intolerance in people when you make them eat the food anyway is not completely useless, but you might plausibly ask about my motivations if I go to Twitter to claim allergen warnings are counterproductive. A person could, for example, use content warnings to choose not to consume something.
Right? Well, the idea that content warnings might allow someone to tailor what content they consume is briefly advanced as a reason for their use: “participants [in a different study] who were given trigger warnings were more likely to avoid both film clips and essays,” although “avoidance” is listed as one of the “harms” of warnings elsewhere and it goes on to say this “may exacerbate anxiety in the long run.” This conclusion is attributed to: an opinion piece in the New York Times, written by one of the paper’s authors.
Indeed, one might ask if the real point of the study is as red meat for similar op-eds about snowflake college kids who refuse to just suck it up and deal, and are also probably eating too much avocado toast to get a mortgage, given some nice pull quotes about “[imperiling] free speech” and “hampering natural resilience.” Notwithstanding, of course, co-author Bellet’s previous work in this area did the Breitbart rounds last year, and I’m sure this will be another hit
