He was making a hypothetical point and you know it.

Anyway in that case I would say that diagnosable conditions like PTSD should be catered for when showing extreme footage, and warnings placed before said footage. Like epilepsy warnings.

However getting offended is not a diagnosable condition.

This should blow over pretty soon. Those pussies can't just go to a rally anymore and blow whistles, air horns, yelling. The crowd will always try shutting them down now. The crowds bring valid non violent verbal actions surrounding the pussies with tye truth. You can see it in some of their faces when the crowd Talk to them as opposed to yelling. These people come so prepared with distractions they forget to bring their arguements.

Just calling them pussies and that they should man up isn't debating anything about trigger warnings or political correctness, it's just being confrontational and insulting.

Explain why you believe trigger warnings or demanding political correctness is detrimental to society. If you're going to attack a group's character for what they're supporting, at least provide a reason for why you feel it's necessary to attack the person and not the issue.

Trigger warnings and political correctness are not inherently bad to society, they're essentially empathetic actions at their core. They're born out of conscious attempts to avoid hurting or offending another person. That in itself isn't a sign of weakness or of being a pussy. Furthermore, requesting forewarning for any possibly offensive content that needs to be covered isn't inherently problematic either. People who have undergone traumatic events, or people who are mentally disturbed by certain imagery, have every right to request accommodation.

While it's clear most people in this thread are deriding people who take it to the extreme, where everything is a microaggression, and everything has to be tone-neutral to offend nobody, that's just performing a strawman argument. It's easy to point at the extremes and poke holes into them, but the same arguments against the extremes won't necessarily work against a more measured, moderate approach.

Because where does the extreme end and the acceptable begin? Is it fair for anybody to request a warning before any content depicting sexual violence because they find it distasteful? Is it only alright if they're a woman? Or if they're a rape victim? Or they know somebody who is a rape victim and empathize with them?

What if it's a historically polarizing figure? Christopher Columbus is taught in U.S. primary education as the person who discovered America, but they don't teach how he slaughtered an entire indigenous people in the process until significantly later in the education process. Is it better that the latter is not taught at all? Or would it be better that it gets taught, but with a warning before it gets covered so students who don't feel comfortable learning about it can be excused and receive an alternative, but credit-equivalent, direction of study? Or should it just be taught fully, discovery and destruction, with no warning whatsoever? Should their be an age limits, where students over the age of 16 have to learn about it no matter what? What if they're of indigenous descent, and might be mortified by the historical treatment of their people?

That line will need to be drawn at some point. Confrontation is a powerful learning tool, but it has to be applied appropriately, and with participants willing to engage in it. Balancing the moral dilemma of emotionally sensitive people with the prevalence of controversial material in modern life is not an easy task, and both extremes of total neutrality and total insensitivity are not appropriate answers. Controversy encourages complex reasoning and thought, but unbridled controversy can cause harm to some of the more vulnerable members of society. The benefits of controversial thought can still be obtained while accommodating those who struggle with certain emotional triggers.

I call them pussies because they like to point out the wrongs without providing any alternatives and furthermore they can hardly back up their stance before they fall silent especially in my City where lesbians run rampant with the man hate speech, they'll show up at a rape convention for men a spitting bullshit about how rapists are men and this isn't a minority, there is a solid following of this hypocrisy, maybe you've never seen it. And don't get me started on the female shaming because that female doesn't agree with their message, soooo they attack. They'll call you names, point out your race, your gender. Again this isn't a minority in my city and while they are doing this they put the gay community in the back seat, minimizing their very real problems. I've attended more then a few of these "Progressive" rallies and parades just for it to devolve into who's the louder group, but now a days. It's about facts. The ones holding the mics will most likely hand over the microphone giving the SJWs the floor in which all they do is spout statistics and buzzwords without providing any real answer.

It's like if I told you that you were doing it wrong, but provided no real input or feed back for improvement. The only real answer for these people is to just stop thinking and speaking.

As a First Nations Cree, It's important to learn our history, get over your triggers and LEARN, hiding in your safe space being accommodated everyday just breeds terrible spoiled sheltered people. Learn from pain don't hide from it.

I'm talking about people have no evidence of a past traumatic experience. People who have REAL diagnosed emotional and mental problems do need to be listened to and helped. I'm talking about spoiled brats here in which there is no shortage of them.

And that's a strawman. It's easy to point at the radical end of any spectrum and point out the holes in their argument, because you usually need to make some large leaps in logic to reach those conclusions. And by only engaging in dismissing the extremes, you're avoiding the crucial part of the discussion, which is where reasonable people might reasonably come into disagreement.

This would be like me saying that all feminists are bad because there's a group of feminists that go around and spit on any man they come across and advocate a total matriarchal society. That's not accurately getting at the issue of feminism, and it's a pretty big leap of logic to assume that a single group of feminists can speak for all of the feminist movement, but that's strawman logic. I'm taking an easy to attack, easy to dispute opponent that may or may not accurately represent the dissenting part of the discussion and beating up on it. It doesn't contribute to the important part of the discussion, and it can actively derail the discussion because it shifts the focus away from the controversial parts of the topic to the flamboyant or outrageous outliers of the topic.

In the case of trigger warnings and safe spaces, most people agree that excessive requests of trigger warnings, and demanding to never be subjected to uncomfortable situations are unreasonable demands. So mocking the excessive use of trigger warnings doesn't actually answer any important questions. It's particularly annoying since there's an easy, but important, question sitting right on top of it, which is when does the request for trigger warnings or excusing themselves from uncomfortable situations becomes excessive. Who should be afforded these leniencies, if anybody, and why? These questions dive into the heart of the matter, which is at what point does your emotional tolerance for uncomfortable thoughts or actions becomes intrusive to others.

Nah, these SJWs vary in huge degrees in cities, like New York I bet they have TONS of them, like I mean a lot so much so, you can't really even talk to them and I wouldn't doubt cities like Vancouver Oregon have the same issue. Places like Detroit probably don't have to many of them. The thing is I hardly here about this shit in Canada, It happens in like 3 cities.

Yes I know it's easy to point out the radicals in any movement, but when you can clearly see that the radicals are on par with the logicals in terms of numbers, it becomes a problem that you can't ignore, again this varies in Cities, some cities don't have to really deal with it and are really only exposed through the news or internet, while other cities have schools bending backwards for this kind of safe space idea.

I also didn't clump an entire group of people together, There are two types of feminism, There are the Militant Lesbian Feminists and the Feminists. You'll probably hear about the militant ones more because they have a louder voice right now which means they have more demands that are met.

While there are many great lesbians out their that have feminist views, they probably wouldn't really call themselves feminists anymore, They want to disassociate themselves from the Lesbian "Feminists" That have taken the western world by storm.

I'm not disagreeing with the movement of triggers or warning, it's about how those people with loud voices are going about it. They are given the floor and were all ears, they squander that.

Censorship is bad.

If you have a problem with someone's opinion, you can go ahead and speak up against them. You are a big boy/girl, and voicing your opinion is your right, which will probably mean there will be people who disagree with you.

Hiding behind your mom's skirt and demanding safe spaces just makes you a sheltered little pussy.

The only censorship I'm fine with is age-related stuff. Past a certain age, you should have thick enough skin to survive whatever is coming at you.

Safe spaces should really only be considered when you've been assaulted, sexually assaulted, or depression/trauma. But when it comes to simply being offended or being triggered from what someone said that's basically just being a wussy and not having a backbone.

Censorship is bad. It's a pity trigger warnings and safe spaces have nothing to do with censorship.

Warning somebody that something offensive might be displayed is not censoring anything. This would be like me complaining about somebody putting up a slippery floor sign because they're infringing on my right to test my balance on a slippery floor. Nobody is stopping you from stepping on that section of floor anyways, but some people don't want to take the chance at falling.

Likewise, allowing somebody to not listen to something they don't want to hear or walk out of something they don't want to experience is not censorship. Free speech doesn't guarantee an audience. Just as you are free to shout whatever beliefs you have to the world, everybody else is just as entitled to not listen to it, and are free to avoid listening to it if they want to. Even if what you're yelling is an absolute truth, and denying it only hurts yourself, it's not censorship if somebody refuses to listen.

Censorship is when free speech is prohibited. By themselves, trigger warnings and safe spaces do not prohibit free speech. What you're riling against are people who use getting offended as a reason to censor free speech. Those people are not synonymous with trigger warnings or safe spaces.


This is why I'm frustrated with this discussion. Nobody who posted and is against trigger warnings seems to have the faintest clue about where trigger warnings end and triggered people begin, and just lump the two together. It's a strawman argument at best, and just plain inability to discuss topics at worst. Mudslinging isn't a discussion.

You should probably read what's been going on in American universities, colleges, and work places.

The few with real diagnosed problems are well... Few and are most likely not even the spear head of the movement and have been forced the back seat.

This idea diminishes recovery. Are war vets every going to protest the use of fireworks in a city? No, that's ridiculous. They want to get used to it again, heal and recover, not live in a constant state "Oh shit I'm gunna get triggered soon" It's like if you always babied a baby when he or she fell. They have to learn to get up on their own and brush it off.

Also that yellow caution sign is by law and protects you from people slipping on your slippery floor. Without it you can get sued, so by your logic, If I do a speech without a trigger warning I could potentially get sued?