|Old_Zircon - 2015-04-11 |
While I have some sympathy for the attempt to reclaim the term "Social Justice Warrior" I think the MRA's/Gamergaters/all of Reddit have pretty much ruined it.
What I'm saying is, using it makes you sound like a douchebag even if you happen to not be one.
I don't think anyone's trying to reclaim the term, in fact I'm pretty sure the opposite is happening. Angry Reddit children coined the term and I fully encourage them to keep using it forever.
Non-ironic usage of "SJW" is incredibly useful, because it makes it easy to identify the types of people who think critical analysis of Bayonetta is the greatest injustice of the 21st century.
Bayonetta is bad because sex is evil and being fully-clothed yet shapely is a serious injustice. This is literally the most important discussion of the 21st century.
|simon666 - 2015-04-11 |
1. Using offense as the measure of ethical actions and ideas is a matter of placing the cart before the horse. A thing that is ethically troubling may give offense, but a thing that gives offense is not necessarily ethically troubling.
2. On the issue of safe spaces, obviously people legitimately suffering from PTSD, a DSM diagnosis, should be accommodated. But being offended or traumatized by offensive ideas and language I'm not sure qualifies.
I'm not the poster of this linked comment, but I tend to side with her take, which I'll reproduce below: dailynous.com/2015/03/23/scary-ideas/#comment-57733
" anon grad student on Mar 23, 2015 • 11:24 am at 11:24 am Reply
I’ve commented anonymously on this topic before, but I will do it again just because I think I represent a voice missing from much of this conversation.
I am a woman, and I have actual PTSD. Like, it’s a medical condition that I take a lot of lengthy steps to deal with on my own, so I can be as normal of a person as possible. I find it really upsetting that a lot of social justice types have appropriated the language of post trauma disorders–real, diagnosed, medical post trauma disorders–in order to legitimate their negative feelings. It ends up making people like me look oversensitive or ridiculous, and it is even harder to explain why sometimes I do need to opt-out of certain classes or assignments. People now think “triggered” means “I feel sad, or anxious, or threatened.” No. That’s not what happens when one ACTUALLY gets triggered.
On a related note, the much maligned “trigger warnings” would actually be very helpful to me in the classroom, and it is upsetting to see that the issue has been taken over by idiotic social justice activists and blown up to ridiculous proportions, such that people want trigger warnings on the Great Gatsby for “racism.” Despite my best preventative measures, there are still a lot of clueless professors who don’t understand why, say, springing a graphic article/discussion about rape on students in the middle of a philosophy of language is not a really good idea. I really would like to say some kind of sensitivity training for faculty, which would perhaps at least get more faculty to ask themselves, “Do I really need to assign/show/discuss THIS PARTICULAR graphic whatever in my class? Is it worth the distress it might cause?” I can’t tell you how many clueless profs have cavalierly discussed or assigned extremely sensitive, disturbing, obviously-going-to-trigger-victims stuff that was more or less not really needed for the class. (Rape in a phil of lang course? Really? THAT was how the prof wanted to get more women on the syllabus? )"
Well, I read it, and I agree.
College campus liberalism is the reason why the Left can't get shit done anymore. It's become the main artery through which America experiences the masochism and guilt of the white middle classes. Rather than be perceived as out of touch, you have to yell as loudly as you can so that you can be perceived as enlightened by your peers while gaining the approval of those you think you're defending. It doesn't actually help anybody, but then yelling and grandstanding never does. One year of debate classes should be a required class for every freshman to complete.
Mothership, why would that person (I assume you mean "anon grad student") need to be more offended? She makes some reasonable points, and the only thing she really seems to be offended by is the misappropriation of the term "trigger warning" (as someone who works with clinically-diagnosed PTSD patients on a daily basis, I can confirm her claims as to the difference in magnitude between what she experiences and what your average SJW conservative means by that term).
I don't mind professors adding "trigger-warning" disclaimers to classes that will deal with rape. I would mind professors being censored and forbidden to talk about certain subjects - in fact, I'd fully support colleges requiring all students to take at least one class on a controversial subject of their choosing, that is taught by a professor whose viewpoint pretty much everybody hates - but letting your students know what they're getting themselves into beforehand would help students who truly can't deal with the topic avoid it, and students who actually think the topic interesting (and some people do), help them to find it.
It's a compromise; a nice, easy, middle ground, that to me sounds totally reasonable and acceptable to most parties.
Oh, and happy Sexual Assault Awareness Month, everypony! I have to design some t-shirts for the upcoming annual SAAM sale at the VA; anyone has any ideas for a fun (and appropriate) graphic, post away!
|Sudan no1 - 2015-04-11 |
Clearly Albuquerque Halsey should have added a trigger warning in the title for you.
|joelkazoo - 2015-04-12 |
When I went back to college for a bit, I took a few film classes, and the professor always opened said classes explaining that the class would be discussing controversial topics, and the films we screened would have things in them that could offend us. However, he was not our babysitter, and if there was something in a film that was screened that could offend us, it was our responsibility to independently do our homework and decide if an upcoming film would upset us (our syllabus included all the movies that would be screened that semester, so we had no excuse otherwise). If there was, we could talk to him, and he'd allow you to skip the screening, but you will still be responsible for any coursework that comes from said screened film, and you could gather said information from textbooks and whatnot. Fair compromise, I'd say. However, one time a movie to be screened didn't show up, and he ended up showing Almodovar's "Y Tu Mama Tambien" without warning, and there were a few walkouts during the mutual masturbation scene.
Wait, Alfonso Cuarón directed that, not Almodovar. My mistake.
Wait, the scene with the guys on two separate diving boards jerking off (camera) into the pool? College students walked out for THAT?
Jesus. Nobody tell this generation about American Pie or There's Something About Mary.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|