Topic: CLICK HERE IF YOU ARE A HIPSTER OLDBIE (Read 37837 times)

  • Avatar of goldenratio
  • now das fresh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 27, 2002
  • Posts: 4550
I think it's more like, yeah we all enjoyed those days and we had a lot of fun, and they are dear to us all, but they are not legitimately funny anymore, and in fact are kind of embarrassing. It seems like shep was trying to say (no matter how much he tries to backpedal now) that we should agree that we were legitimately funny back then, which we weren't (at least not with issues like this). That doesn't mean we have to pretend like our past never happened.


And I don't mean ignore it completely, I mean we just collectively have grown up and moved past our behavior back then and we agree communally that the way we used to act, the jokes we used to make, are not OK.
yes coulombs are "germaine", did you learn that word at talk like a dick school?
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
to me it looks like this discussion has been transformed into a dense and difficult subject, when it's really about shepperd posting offensive stuff and taking all possible measures just to not be wrong/not be the bad guy. whether it's intentional or just a response to the rapid commenting, it has clearly been the old method of being obtuse as possible until everyone is led down a different path and any argument they can construct won't progress the discussion at all. I don't think where we are now is anywhere close to where the topic began.

but this discussion about the merits of pushing the boundaries with comedy is probably a good subject and it seems like something re: targ/fierce niggar etc might come out of that. but I'm not sure the best time to talk about the merits of pushing the boundaries with comedy is right after a guy has been arguing against PC and telling people they just need to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously over serious issues that are a huge part of their lives, and btw here's a dumb comedy bit about why south park was right about the word fag. I think what hundley's talking about is more relevant to targ than CK's bit, which I think is more of a bad homage to Carlin than anything actually following his way of thinking
  • Avatar of fucked up wastoid
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 1, 2012
  • Posts: 187
the problem even with the borat joke and rape jokes in general is that they don't exist in a vacuum. they exist in the context where rape is still a very real thing and in a society where rape victims continue to fight a horrible uphill battle the entire rest of their lives simply for being victims.  maybe borat or some other comedian can make a clever observation about it, but for every 5 people in the audience that're smart enough to get it, there are 50 other buffoons who think their horrible views are being validated and they go on to perpetuate rape culture (or racism or homophobia or w/e the taboo joke is). it seems to me like comedians are quick to defend themselves and hold up their freedom to make jokes as a sacrilege, but all the while completely ignoring any kind of unintended blowback that's a direct consequence of their actions. like i understand why comedians should be free, but the issue isn't as simple as they make it out to be.

  • Avatar of Faust
  • Comedy Bronze
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Global Moderator
  • Joined: Nov 27, 2001
  • Posts: 1018
THEY ARE ALL GOOD FRIENDS (AGAIN) IN THE PAC-LAND


On a side-note, it was pretty shocking to see the word OCTAROON in Barkley. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making any kind of moral comment about it, but the word is an incredibly negative (and dated/died out) word over here. Like my ancient uncle is the only person I've heard using it. It was a JOLT. Admittedly, I did smile at the word, which...I don't know. I guess it wasn't used in what I would take as an offensive way - much like the old Alf Garnitt 'Til Death Us Do Part" or 'LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR' old tv show. Both of these shows actually attempted to combat racism by showing the main characters making racist comments, being bigots, but always COMING UNSTUCK due to their actions. However, the majority of the audience seem to have taken the shows at face value, as in the whole "THEY GOT AWAY WITH SAYING THOSE WORDS HAHA, GOOD ON YOU BOYS NO-PC", which kind of defeats the point. Plus, as a white dude, I have no idea how it feels to hear those words. I don't really feel qualified to comment on how offensive the terms are in that respect. Fuck, rambling.

Oh, and Boratwise - I always thought that the best thing that came out of that was that some people actually found out about Kazakhstan after that character appeared (not the movie, like the TV show many years prior). For example, instead of it not being on many people's radar, it came to the fore as a place with serious human rights violations and lack of independent judiciary and shit. But, then again, there's a ridiculous push by the tabloid media here in the UK to have our judiciary like ELECTED, so I don't think we're the prize pig at the fair in that regard either.


(SORRY FOR NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN EARLIER DISCUSSION - I SPEND ALL DAY TELL KIDS TO NOT SAY FAGGOT SO IT IS NICE THAT OTHERS DO IT INSTEAD HERE IN MY SANCTUARY!!!!!!!!!!)

PS: Apparently, on discussion, the older students allege that 'faggot' doesn't mean homosexual any more, instead it means WEAK. The SOUTH PARK DEFENCE!!!! They're actually getting a lot better at NOT saying it now, but it's taken some serious discussions.

FUCK this post has become modernist as I'm going to fuck the whole PS: vibe and go onto another random point now that annoys me: Here in the UK, if a student takes part in a racial attack, or utters racial language (like the N-word), it's a very serious incident which must be recorded. Legally also, the exact same applies to homophobia. However, no one ever reports the homophobic stuff. It just gets washed over. In fact, I've seen teachers not even TACKLE the issue when it comes up. I always fucking do, but it gives kids the total wrong message. When I make comparisons between racist and homophobic language, they can totally understand and explain why racist language is unacceptable. They even seem completely shocked about the comparison ever being made. One kid I spoke to about it (a 13 year old), explained it as just the way he was brought up. The same kid told me a lesson later that his father had recently told him and his brother that he'd disown them if they were gay.

Fuck, legally we're in the right position, but it's still going to take a long time before it becomes customary to NOT nonchalantly describe people as "faggots" or for random kids to NOT loudly proclaim a disgust for homosexuals within the classroom context.
Hey hey hey
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
the problem even with the borat joke and rape jokes in general is that they don't exist in a vacuum. they exist in the context where rape is still a very real thing and in a society where rape victims continue to fight a horrible uphill battle the entire rest of their lives simply for being victims.  maybe borat or some other comedian can make a clever observation about it, but for every 5 people in the audience that're smart enough to get it, there are 50 other buffoons who think their horrible views are being validated and they go on to perpetuate rape culture (or racism or homophobia or w/e the taboo joke is). it seems to me like comedians are quick to defend themselves and hold up their freedom to make jokes as a sacrilege, but all the while completely ignoring any kind of unintended blowback that's a direct consequence of their actions. like the issue isn't as simple as comedians make it out to be.
Yeah, I don't fundamentally disagree with this, but I've always had trouble fully compromising my own beliefs with lowest common denominator theory. The fact that there is potentially an awful person out there who will misinterpret something does not, to me, invalidate the reality of the work's aims and intention. In my view, any sort of artistic endeavor loses its traction if you feel the need to avoid topics you can otherwise handle maturely, simply to protect foolish people who do not possess a clear enough of a mind to see it for what it is. It's definitely a real concern, particularly in other forms and mediums, but I don't think the ultimate weight of this fear should override the value of creative vision in most cases*.

I could speak a lot longer on this issue specifically, what it means in comedy and beyond, since this is something I actively do keep in mind to a degree while I'm writing, but this is an extraordinarily complicated issue to address here. Hit me in private sometime if you have something on the matter you'd like to address with me. Given what we've worked on in the past, we HAVE endeavored to make games that had the distant possibility of inspiring people to take an assault rifle into their office. Might be something we should have a discussion about at some point, if this is of any concern to your professional life.



*Edit: I do want to highlight MOST CASES here. Like this is probably the worst thing a black person has done in the last decade, and I'm glad that Chris Rock eventually admitted that this was the shittiest, most counterproductive bit of ammunition to give deplorable white people.
  • Avatar of fucked up wastoid
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 1, 2012
  • Posts: 187
Quote from: hundley
The fact that there is potentially an awful person out there who will misinterpret something does not, to me, invalidate the reality of the work's aims and intention
yeah i understand this, but once the situation crosses a line from just 'someone misinterpreting something' into 'someone potentially coming into harm and/or someone using it to contribute to a culture of oppression', then that kind of changes things.

but yeah, on a purely philosophical level i totally get what you're saying. still though, i guess i'm just not a young idealist anymore. like i personally don't have any problems compromising a small bit of my artistic integrity if i feel that it is for a greater good. maybe this is a shitty thing to say, but we live in a shitty world and my stupid art having the freedom to say whatever it wants is a luxury that isn't all that important when there are far more real horrors out there.

 i won't draw any lines in the sand for anyone else though. i'm only speaking for myself. i have no idea what all comedians or what society in general should do. maybe handle certain situations with the respect and sensitivity it requires and not be like carlin and apply some laissez-faire free market logic to fucking joke's of all things. idk.
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
yeah i understand this, but once the situation crosses a line from just 'someone misinterpreting something' into 'someone potentially coming into harm and/or someone using it to contribute to a culture of oppression', then that kind of changes things.

but yeah, on a purely philosophical level i totally get what you're saying. still though, i guess i'm just not a young idealist anymore. like i personally don't have any problems compromising a small bit of my artistic integrity if i feel that it is for a greater good. maybe this is a shitty thing to say, but we live in a shitty world and my stupid art having the freedom to say whatever it wants is a luxury that isn't all that important when there are far more real horrors out there.

 i won't draw any lines in the sand for anyone else though. i'm only speaking for myself. i have no idea what all comedians or what society in general should do. maybe handle certain situations with the respect and sensitivity it requires and not be like carlin and apply some laissez-faire free market logic to fucking joke's of all things. idk.
We'll talk about this sometime. I'm convinced there are ways to do this rather well without really having to compromise. It's not like you need to walk very far to get away from the obsessive murder culture of the rest of the industry.
  • Avatar of jamie
  • ruined former youth seeking atonement
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 4, 2003
  • Posts: 3581
every person intelligent enough to be discerning has a responsibility to consider the impact of what they say and do, and that goes just as much for comedians who have ideas about it being right for them to push boundaries. i'm not saying anyone should be censored for stuff that could be taken the wrong way. it's about the reception of the message. i think the comedians talked about here know that 95% of their audience will take the thing they are saying to validate their perspective even if the material is more nuanced than that (and i don't think in the case of louis ck's routine that it is). if they know that and they do it anyway, they are being irresponsible, and i'll respect them less. i like most of louie ck's show louie, but i rarely go out of my way to compliment it or him because of this swathe of stupid and irresponsible stuff he has said throughout his career. it's a problem!

and if they don't know on some level what they are doing is irresponsible and possibly harmful, then they're probably just a fucking idiot and what do i care about these pit people anyway?

i think also it is possibly to confuse being edgy with just being really conservative and unapologetic about it. that's what the louie ck bit is - sure he's being crass, and most people wouldn't talk that way so it is shocking to some, but what he is saying is just some privileged conservative bullshit that your average office joe is probably thinking and loves to hear validated in such a way. there's nothing constructive, progressive, or even transgressive, about it.

If during a comedy show, a comedian says something which gets a rapturous applause, people hyperventilating with vindicated laughter, it is almost definitely going to be something like 'now ladies i know you say you don't dress that way to get hit on but i'm sorry that is BULL-SHIT'. the arena collapses as the floors open up, the audience collectively falls to the floor and begins convulsing, a demonic cacophony of self-satisfaction erupts as louie ck repeats over and over 'quit being a faggot and suck that dick!'.
  • Avatar of mkkmypet
  • Fuzzball of Doom!!!11one
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 5, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
hmmm this is a very interesting discussion and i would like to read more!! i've read this whole topic and now i'm just going to ramble about some things it's made me think.

i think discussing the role of humor with all of you is very enlightening and important because my sense of humor was massively influenced by GW, and i think overall it has been a very good thing. but yeah, i recognize that there were a lot of lame and horrible things in GW's past, but also that there were some great things. it was all a learning process. i'm proud of a lot of the things which came out of GW, and i have a strong connection to this place's past due to how it affected my development and led to the formation of important friendships and creative experiences.

i basically agree with everyone in this topic to some extent. there are bits from each post which i relate to. and like hundley said, i think it's difficult to determine whether anyone here is really disagreeing on certain things or not, just because of the complexity of these issues. (p.s. hundley i think we share a lot of opinions and i respect you a lot and would love to talk to you more individually or on irc or whatever because you're a rad dude and i really appreciate your influence in my life!! i don't think i've ever been one-of-the-Targ-Kids but i have definitely been influenced by targ and i think it's a really interesting art form so THANKYOU for cultivating it and please DO allow yourself a bit of pride about your contributions to others' senses of humor and creativity~~)

i am of the opinion that there is nothing that is ever TOTALLY OFF-LIMITS in discussions or in humor. but everything is very much on a case-by-case basis. i am also generally of the opinion that one's own experiences and genetics do not necessarily give people more or less of a right to talk about certain things or use certain words. (key word: necessarily. because in cases of "reclaiming slurs", for example, obviously an individual's traits do matter to an extent. but this is another tricky and complicated subject) (and also obviously people should not speak for others whose experiences are different, e.g. a straight white male saying that lesbian women aren't reeeaaally affected by the word "dyke" because "they use it to describe themselves!!", etc. (but basically i'm just saying that people should not ASSUME about others' "claims" to certain words or topics))

one thing i always refer to in a discussion about this stuff is the classic Mark Twain novel Huckleberry Finn, because it's an example of A White Guy Using "Nigger" In A Good Way since it's used properly within the novel's context and the novel is ultimately a very anti-racism, anti-slavery story. i'm a big fan of Mark Twain as a writer and satirist and i think he's an example of how people can talk about serious issues by using comedy. and every recipient of the Mark Twain Award also exemplifies this-- most recently Ellen DeGeneres!! :>

and every individual has different reactions in relation to certain concepts and words. for example, i am really not the type to get offended. i'm not a very emotional person or one who takes things very personally. (these are just aspects of who i am, and not things i expect or suggest for anyone else.) this might be surprising-- others often assume they need to be careful about what they talk about in front of me due to the fact that i am admittedly a pansexual, polyamorous, non-binary, transgender, female, part-Native-American, rape/molestation victim. those are all minorities which have a history of horrible abuse, and plenty of associated slurs. so yeah, even though i'm not likely to get personally upset about slurs and whatnot, i recognize that they are bad things which make life a lot harder for me and others like me.

relevant thought: i'm a fan of "trigger warnings"-- expressing beforehand about certain sensitive topics which will be mentioned in an upcoming discussion/joke/image/etc... because i'm not easily offended by most things, i pretty much ignore/skip trigger warnings, but i appreciate the fact that they exist for other people who ARE more affected by controversial things which they didn't expect.

trigger warnings can be done very casually, like sometimes people will recommend a book/movie/song/something to me but because they know certain things about me they might cautiously say "by the way, it deals with child molestation, heroin addiction, and abusive relationships... [implied: ][/implied:]" and i basically just say "okay cool; i'm not really affected by things like that but i really appreciate the fact that you considered i might be!" and i think that sort of considerate empathy is a very good thing to practice.

so here is a point i'm trying to make: you may not be personally affected by the use of a slur-- even if it is something that DOES apply to you and is used against you!! but it is basically your duty as a Decent Human Being to be considerate towards other people who ARE affected by such things. this is a rule which applies equally in-person and on the internet. it is all sure-as-heck "Real Life". basically, in all your contact with other humans, please just ~be excellent to each other~ <3
semper games.
  • Avatar of Warped655
  • Scanner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2004
  • Posts: 2416
On the topic of trigger warnings, I always thought that was exclusively for rape... But I guess it makes sense for other issues too.

I was playing one of the Call of Duty's when I was younger and when my grampa was visiting, he came downstairs saw the game and became sweaty and just showed body language that indicated discomfort while looking at the game. Made me wonder if he was part of WW2 (hes never mentioned so) or if I was just imagining things.

Regardless if that was what was going on, I bring it up though because it makes me think that a LOT of things can 'trigger'.
  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
The last time someone called me a faggot irl it was meant as a compliment lol
  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
I'm not a fan of trigger warnings, leave that shit on cultural studies grad students' tumblrs about privilege theory and intersectionality
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
I'm not entirely talking about whether or not the humor works, I guess I'm trying to figure out internally how much the actual intent or focus of the performance or humor actually matters. Like I see the two videos from Louis C.K. and Carlin and, maybe out of some pure comedic naivete I have, see them as actually not being a slight on women, or black people, or, homosexuals, or rape victims, but more being a commentary on language(specifically the idea of a cultural language), where that is what's being criticized, not anybody's personal status or worth. Sure, both of these reached their points in awful ways, and I don't fault someone for taking exception to these specific examples, since they are both equally clumsy to the point where I feel like no worthwhile point is reached, but is there no line when it comes to topics like this? If the topic is reached, it becomes unacceptable? That's the question I'm trying to answer here.

Well, I think intent matters. But it's not an inexhaustible source. There are things that need to be taken into account—for example, if you're driving at 100 mph through the inner city and you end up killing someone who's crossing the street, you certainly did not intend to kill that person, but you did accept that such a thing could realistically be a consequence of your actions. Essentially, you cannot reasonably make the case that the possibility of such a thing happening never occurred to you. I think it's the same with comedians crossing into dark topics like rape, slurs, et cetera: you can drive at 100 mph through the inner city, and you might even reach your destination without any entrails getting stuck in your window washer, but it's a pretty big risk that you're taking, at the potential cost of people other than yourself, even if your intention is simply to be a wonderful person. You can make a pretty good case that this risk is unacceptable, and that any reasonable person should make the personal decision to avoid it for that reason.

I may be misunderstanding the viewpoints here, or we're effectively talking about different things, but what I have assumed people were asserting here is that certain potential topics in humor do not have the capacity to be funny without automatically being reprehensibly offensive. Period. Even if the topic isn't exactly the butt of the joke, or the area of concern being satirized. Is this the point you folks are making?
Well, I don't think anything is de jure off-limits. But it's not easy. So if we take jokes about rape, for example, it becomes problematic as soon as the severity of the subject matter is trivialized (which is virtually all rape jokes ever made). But it's not impossible to make humor that underscores the severity of the problem instead, such as this bit by Wanda Sykes.

Even then it could be a bad thing to do because it might trigger an episode for someone who's suffering from post-traumatic stress from having been raped or sexually abused in some fashion. And a pretty decent amount of women have been. The question then becomes if it's worth going out of your way to take that into account. I don't think you can avoid this moral choice if you plan on going to such a topic—you either take those people into account or you don't. And to go back to the question of intention, I don't think it matters all that much in this case. You certainly would never intend for anyone to be taken out of their escapist entertainment and back into a deeply anxious and stressful situation, but if that is the result of your actions, the fact that you did not intend for it to happen makes little difference. I don't think you can claim ignorance of the possibility that something like that might legitimately upset someone, so you must have decided to do it anyway in spite of that possibility. Like driving through the inner city at 100 mph.

As for your example, I really can't make a judgment about it without seeing it. I know next to nothing about Borat. It seems he's pretty effective at making other people show their bigotry, but I don't know if the joke you describe has the result it intends to have. I'd want to look more closely to draw a conclusion. I have a pretty limited ability to make such a determination anyway, considering I don't actively worry about whether walking back home from Japanese class in the evening will lead to me being beaten and penetrated.

I guess the question is what we're even talking about here. I personally am OK with the way the Boltok the Rapist joke is structured and presented, even though I'm sure this pulled people out of the Borat narrative. It strikes me as sufficiently innocuous and generally unceremonious considering the Borat context of literally everything about his cultural backstory being something we are OBVIOUSLY NOT supposed to rally behind.
Like you mentioned, even if it's effective at underscoring the severity and ubiquity of rape, it might have taken people out of the narrative. That in and of itself is something to keep in mind. And by saying that, I don't mean to draw the conclusion that this sort of thing is entirely off-limits. The use of humor might very well be a good way for women to raise awareness about just how deep the problem is, like Wanda Sykes' bit attempts to do. But I do think you have to ask yourself if you're capable of putting such a message out there, and also if you're the right person to be doing such a thing and in this manner. Aside from prison rape, it's almost entirely an issue of female emancipation, and that means women are the ones who should coordinate efforts to raise awareness and fight back; after all, they are the ones affected by it. They are the ones who have to deal with it if something you say ends up contributing to society's deeply ingrained apathy towards rape. You're the one in the car, they are the ones on the crosswalk.

As far as I'm concerned comedians can go to these awful places, as long as they're not trying to make light of the plight of the victims, which I feel is the case in something like this.
That's essentially what I said as well, but I think I might be more careful about it than you. Actually, although I'm not a comedian or a writer or anything like that, I would never even attempt a joke of this kind even if I strongly believe it won't trivialize the matter, because of the aforementioned pitfalls. It's just not a risk I would ever take, even if, in theory, I would be OK with a joke that contributes to a better understanding of the issue.

With this post I don't want to say I AGREE/DISAGREE, but I just want to raise some issues that you have to consider for yourself. The same basic principles apply to jokes that involve slurs. Just personally, as someone who's affected by the use of the word "faggot", I've always been on the fence about its use in jokes or narratives. I've seen jokes using the term that I think were acceptable and conducive to the cause, but not many. Actually all I can recall is something you said long ago, can't quote it but I thought it was a good joke and it conveyed the intended idea of how deeply problematic the anti-gay sentiment is. But the thing is, I'm not the only person on the planet, and there are plenty of people on the planet who don't want to see that even if they and everyone else does get it. So again, I personally would not want to go there. It's a very difficult question, still. And I can't tell you what to do (and I definitely wouldn't want to).

i am also generally of the opinion that one's own experiences and genetics do not necessarily give people more or less of a right to talk about certain things or use certain words. (key word: necessarily. because in cases of "reclaiming slurs", for example, obviously an individual's traits do matter to an extent. but this is another tricky and complicated subject) (and also obviously people should not speak for others whose experiences are different, e.g. a straight white male saying that lesbian women aren't reeeaaally affected by the word "dyke" because "they use it to describe themselves!!", etc. (but basically i'm just saying that people should not ASSUME about others' "claims" to certain words or topics))
I think you said it pretty well when you mentioned that one cannot speak for others. you have to be vocal about things that affect you and defer to others for things that affect them. so for example, it is quite possible for a guy to know a great deal about feminism and contribute lively to serving its cause, and indeed I know a bunch of people who are, but they have to realize that this is an issue of female emancipation. so I don't think it is legitimate for them to have much say in how the movement operates and how it goes about achieving its goals.

a while ago, the group Anonymous (or at least random hackers calling themselves that) hacked a govt website in Uganda and put up a picture of a Ugandan gay activist and a highly provocative pro-gay rights message. the liberals mostly praised it and fist bumped, but it was really a deeply misled action. it's easy for a bunch of hackers sitting in the US in their parents basement to put up a middle finger to Ugandan homophobes because they're not the ones facing the bullets and the bludgeons. just to add context, it was right after the country's most well-known gay activist was found beaten to death, during a time when the parliament was considering adopting a measure that would legalize the murder of gay people. so it's easy for liberal hackers in the West to put up a provocative message insulting the Ugandan government and everybody supporting this measure, but they probably didn't even bother to check what effect their action had. (probably a negative one.)

I'm not a fan of trigger warnings, leave that shit on cultural studies grad students' tumblrs about privilege theory and intersectionality
manarchist.
  • Avatar of Vellfire
  • TV people want to leave
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2004
  • Posts: 9602
I'm not a fan of trigger warnings, leave that shit on cultural studies grad students' tumblrs about privilege theory and intersectionality

I hate this reply and it's attitude. I am too tired to be nice, fuck this shit. Trigger warnings aren't some cutesy college liberal tumblr shit, some people have real life PTSD that can avoid being triggered by taking two seconds to put like three words. Fuck you coming in and deciding they aren't worthwhile when people who have PTSD (particularly from rape) request them.
I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates
  • Avatar of Vellfire
  • TV people want to leave
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2004
  • Posts: 9602
"I'm not a fan of trigger warnings" says someone who doesn't need them.
I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
yeah man, the thing I don't like is that you come in here and you say this without offering anything in the way of an explanation. did you think about why those things exist? or consider the fact they're not just the cutesy social justice blog equivalents of pink bracelets? do you have an alternative to offer? do you have any reason to believe they're not necessary?

I mean, you're a very well read guy, you obviously care about things and about people, but you seem to be unaware of the fact that your post literally might as well have been posted by Karl Rove, verbatim. it doesn't take a genius to see that such a post would at the very least raise questions and cause a lot of confusion. perhaps you think that the entire social science movement is careerist nonsense and that nihilist communism will solve everything. maybe! but if that's the case then you should at the very least grace us with even the slightest hint that this is the case.
  • Avatar of fucked up wastoid
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 1, 2012
  • Posts: 187
trigger warnings are fine for things that may actually trigger PTSD. it's kinda dumb when you see people use it for anything that may remotely cause a negative feeling. seeing shit like "[trigger ][/trigger] i like hamburgers lol" spits in the face of rape victims and PTSD sufferers a lot more than dietcoke's post does.
  • Avatar of mkkmypet
  • Fuzzball of Doom!!!11one
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 5, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
yeah why are you against trigger warnings? i would legitimately like to hear more of your thoughts about that. they're just a more formalized version of the friendly "hey check out this thing but by the way it has ____ in it which you might want to know about in advance". i guess they might seem pedantic, unnecessary, or troublesome, but they are well-intentioned and very useful for those who are easily triggered. i think they're a pretty good solution for this sort of problem.

p.s. while i am not emotionally affected much by discussion/jokes/media about sensitive topics, i do have PTSD which manifests mostly through nightmares and flashbacks, so i do tend to avoid reading/watching certain rape-related things just before bedtime... and so that's one of those uses of trigger warnings which i personally appreciate the use of. so basically i'm just +1ing what Vellfire said, because yeah if there is a system which you can utilize which would help trauma victims to not be triggered, then the considerate thing to do would be to use it when appropriate.

ahh but yes fucked up wastoid you are right as well. and i can see why that is a reason one might complain about the use of trigger warnings. if Barack Obama/dietcoke had explained that as his reasoning in the first place, i think his post wouldn't have been met with negativity. it was just not an especially beneficial post to lay down a reasonless blanket statement like "lol trigger warnings are shit" when there are plenty of people who strongly support their use.
semper games.
  • Avatar of Vellfire
  • TV people want to leave
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2004
  • Posts: 9602
Yeah basically there's a HUGE difference between improperly using trigger warnings and just plain using them.

Should you use trigger warnings?  Absolutely.  Should you use them for literally anything you want even if it's stuff that isn't actually triggering?  No, because that devalues the use of them.  I don't think anyone here was advocating the use of them in literally any situation you want though.  I don't think dietcoke's post had anything to do with that, it was instead just "lol trigger warnings those are for tumblr not real life" which infuriates me.
I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates
  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
"I'm not a fan of trigger warnings" says someone who doesn't need them.

lol like you know anything about me


Wastoid is absolutely right, its gotten to the point where the phrase "trigger warning" itself is more or less a rhetorical signifier of a pretty specific perspective typically accompanied with some sort of moral bludgeon aimed at people's identity(see above). There are ways people have prefaced potentially traumatic/graphic descriptions of events and subjects that isn't so heavy handed... IDC so much about other people using them so much, write w/e you want, its when people start getting offended at their absence that gets a lil ridiculous.
Locked