Well sure, if you take away the context of those statements, they look pretty bad.
It's not at all clear to me that these statements are any different in context. If you feel that they are, feel free to explain in more detail how the context changed the fundamental intent of the statements from how I portrayed them.
Then explain why I was denied the chance at a scholarship despite having better grades then a women and people of color and had to take on military service to afford a education?
Wait, did you meet the people who recieved scholarships instead of you? Like, individually? Did you all take tests and share the results?
Because what it seems like happened is you assumed you deserved the scholarships over others, and are holding sexist and racist beliefs about intelligence levels.
How is what I put a racist statement? Look at the statistics black people commit more crime per person. That isn;t a racist statement that is a factual statement. You can look into why that is but numbers are not racists I am sorry.
The people who received scholarships over me received ones I was not allowed to apply for simply due to me being a white male. If you want to fight racism start with government approved racism then work your way down. I beat out both (the scholarship was based around credit averages) but since I wasn't a women nor an native I received no support. I can only point to two examples of this since we are talking about personal experience.
What sexist and racist beliefs am I holding? I ask because you seem like the kind of person who likes to use weasel words so please spell it out. Explain how anything I have said is either racist or sexist?
For those with trigger warnings. Yeah I admit I went a bit overboard with ridiculing them I don't personally see why we have trigger warnings as I find parental adversary stickers to be informative enough but I can understand why they are there.
This argument about scholarships can go nowhere because affirmative action is an inflammatory topic that has little to do with the harms of artistic works. Just putting that out there to pre-empt a derail
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Okay, one thing: Trigger Warning is not used to shame people.
Does using it derisively to ridicule people who use it as a forewarning count?
in that specific usage, I guess?
I've never come across that.
Prima just did.
I suppose. I was reading the question as asking if saying something akin to "trigger warning: the following contains stuff that would be Offensive to Sensitive Babies" was a use of trigger warnings to shame people into agreement.
on the other hand, I read prima as saying that trigger warnings are the tools of idiots and assholes.
which I now see are one and the same.
doesn't really invalidate the point of what I said.
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Well sure, if you take away the context of those statements, they look pretty bad.
It's not at all clear to me that these statements are any different in context. If you feel that they are, feel free to explain in more detail how the context changed the fundamental intent of the statements from how I portrayed them.
As a sidenote, I've come to be in favor of trigger warnings on art, though I'd rather call them "content warnings" or similar because there are a lot of reasons to avoid something besides finding it triggering. If the philosophy of censorship is "read what we tell you", the philosophy of anti-censorship is "You are an adult and can make your own decisions about what to read." Anything that helps people make a more informed decision about what to read seems to fit much better into the anti-censorship philosophy.
I am maybe a little concerned about trigger warnings being used as a kind of intellectual gang sign, rather than an honest warning about content. For example, someone could put a big sticker saying "TRIGGER WARNING: THIS BOOK IS SEXIST" on all of the books in the library that don't agree with their views on gender. At that point it's less of a warning and more of an attack on the people who like the book, a statement that their views are unwelcome and that you can demonstrate your mastery of an area by only allowing your own symbols. But I think those issues are fairly easy to solve by putting content warnings in the fine print and using neutral descriptive language where possible.
In general though, content warnings seem to me like one of our strongest weapons against suppression and censorship. The censor says "This book offends some people, so we must prevent you from reading it." Content warnings say "I am explaining exactly how this might offend you in advance, so if you continue to listen past that point it is on you." It seems to nicely solve the problem of people seeing media they don't like and being emotionally hurt by it.
That was more or less what I meant though I can across over hostile. Its how I see trigger warnings used that I find worrying I fail to see what they bring to the table that could not simply be put into the existing rating system.
People who need trigger warnings need therapy. The problem is that the concept of needing psychiatric help is super shameful. In the process of readjustment they must be able to live a seminormal life without pre-exposure to stimuli they just can't handle yet, as this will delay their recovery. The treatment goal is to make their response equal to the range of non-traumatized people.
This is assuming that we are only talking about PTSD triggers.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I've given specific examples of specific art that would harm specific people. The only way I can begin to understand disagreements with that is if you literally deny the concept of emotional pain.
I don't see any good faith in Astaereth's arguments, either. Strawmen and selective reading galore.
One last time - people get hurt by art. Rape victims get hurt by rape depictions or jokes. Black people are hurt by racist jokes, depictions, blackface etc. Gay people get hurt by stereotypical portrayals. The minimum is emotional distress, and then there are other more pernicious effects, such as the spreading of bigoted ideas.
If you literally cannot imagine someone being hurt by a piece of art, fiction, gaming etc, then you are privileged as hell. I certainly don't get hurt by much of it, although racist jokes on TV upset me a lot. I'm very lucky. But I see others hurt by it. Why do you think 'trigger warning' became a phrase? You want to know how a survivor of torture reacts to an average episode of 24? I've seen that, and it's not pretty.
What you want to make of this I don't know. primalight apparently thinks that means I want to enact 1984. Perhaps you view hurting people (minorities, though, always minorities and victims, remember) is the necessary price of a free state.
But I just simply responded to some of you saying 'art can't harm' - because it so manifestly does all the time.
Forgive me for being blunt.
People like you are the greatest cowards on earth and you earn nothing but my spite.
Your sick and yes sick is the proper word to use here idea to try and bubble wrap the world in order for no one the be offended is one of the most toxic attitude you can take and should never be tolerated in any society that considers itself civilized.
Making issues or topics sacred cows does not help anyone not the victims of crime nor those being persecuted by racism. Tell me do you honestly believe rape jokes or black jokes cause rape? Are you that naive? Do you really think by making issues be sectioned off you are doing anything but being a determent to us as a people facing them?
Jokes about black people do not cause racism. Preferential treatment combined with a extremely high rate of crime being committed by black people cause racism.
Rape victims well to be frank it depends on a individual case bases to be frank people like you I personally believe are what make rape such a terrible crime and sadly I speak from experience. I didn't lose my virginity by choice and I lost it at the age of 13 to a at the time 37 year old women. Now I won't condone rape in anyway but it wasn't the act itself that caused me the most pain. It was how everyone afterwards treated me so differently they walked on pins and needles afraid to talk or even to bring up what happened. It wasn't till someone took the time to explain to me that what happened was really at the end of the day just sex. I was not prepared for it and it was done unwillingly but at the end of the day that is what it was.
"trigger warning" and "privilege" are not words used by the wise or the learned. They are used by people who have no argument who want to shame people into agreeing with them. I refuse to see the world as something it isn't. I refuse to pretend groups have privilege while you can post in newspapers legally that they are only hiring people of color or people or people of a native tribe.
You want to say people are privileged?
Then explain why I was denied the chance at a scholarship despite having better grades then a women and people of color and had to take on military service to afford a education?
You want to bubble wrap the world so no one gets offended. So no one with any problem ever has to face it and I want you to understand people like me will fight you bitterly to the end in order to ever stop you from doing so. You want to stop racist jokes? Take a hard look at why black people commit a hell of a lot more crimes and address it. You want to stop hurting rape victims? Stop treating them as damaged good and help them realize that although what happened to them was wrong it was in reality no more then a assault rather then making it seem like a life altering event.
Art only hurts those who are to afraid to look at the hardness of the world and wish to turn a blind eye to its harshness in favor for comforting lies.
You literally don't understand one word I'm saying.
People who need trigger warnings need therapy. The problem is that the concept of needing psychiatric help is super shameful. In the process of readjustment they must be able to live a seminormal life without pre-exposure to stimuli they just can't handle yet, as this will delay their recovery. The treatment goal is to make their response equal to the range of non-traumatized people.
This is assuming that we are only talking about PTSD triggers.
And this is a major problem. There really is nothing for a citizen to gain by seeking mental health care except to be ostracized, lose legal rights, and potentially even lose freedom (in states that allow LE to involuntarily subject citizens to mental care).
People who need trigger warnings need therapy. The problem is that the concept of needing psychiatric help is super shameful. In the process of readjustment they must be able to live a seminormal life without pre-exposure to stimuli they just can't handle yet, as this will delay their recovery. The treatment goal is to make their response equal to the range of non-traumatized people.
This is assuming that we are only talking about PTSD triggers.
Of course, but therapy isn't a magic bullet. People can have all the therapy in the world and still not be healed.
Wow' blacks cause their own racism by being violent thugs and freeloading on undeserved scholarships 'certainly is a viewpoint. Please reconsider what you wrote carefully.
People who need trigger warnings need therapy. The problem is that the concept of needing psychiatric help is super shameful. In the process of readjustment they must be able to live a seminormal life without pre-exposure to stimuli they just can't handle yet, as this will delay their recovery. The treatment goal is to make their response equal to the range of non-traumatized people.
This is assuming that we are only talking about PTSD triggers.
Of course, but therapy isn't a magic bullet. People can have all the therapy in the world and still not be healed.
Unless it's attributable to some associated physical disorder, you only know this when enough people give up. And people who are not successfully treated tend to have compromised independence in their daily life. A point where triggers elicit maladaptive thought should never be the endpoint of care.
In fact, treatment of PTSD centers around the idea of disabusing the sufferer of the perception of these triggers as harmful. The most empirically successful CBT treatments for rape are Prolonged Exposure and Cognitive Processing Therapy, both of which involve the patient describing the event in vivid detail and playing it over and over, with or without contextualization and coping strategies, until the brain gets the idea that the threat associated with these triggers is fiction.
Triggers in the environment, like a movie scene, are in uncontrolled situations and establish more associations with perceived harm, feeding the disorder. They're not helpful. However, successful treatment does mean that the person can encounter these without enduring psychological harm. This is unlike addiction or personality disorders, in which lifelong abstinence can be deemed as an acceptable endpoint.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
People who need trigger warnings need therapy. The problem is that the concept of needing psychiatric help is super shameful. In the process of readjustment they must be able to live a seminormal life without pre-exposure to stimuli they just can't handle yet, as this will delay their recovery. The treatment goal is to make their response equal to the range of non-traumatized people.
This is assuming that we are only talking about PTSD triggers.
And this is a major problem. There really is nothing for a citizen to gain by seeking mental health care except to be ostracized, lose legal rights, and potentially even lose freedom (in states that allow LE to involuntarily subject citizens to mental care).
The law is actually a lot kinder than the people.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
People who need trigger warnings need therapy. The problem is that the concept of needing psychiatric help is super shameful. In the process of readjustment they must be able to live a seminormal life without pre-exposure to stimuli they just can't handle yet, as this will delay their recovery. The treatment goal is to make their response equal to the range of non-traumatized people.
This is assuming that we are only talking about PTSD triggers.
And this is a major problem. There really is nothing for a citizen to gain by seeking mental health care except to be ostracized, lose legal rights, and potentially even lose freedom (in states that allow LE to involuntarily subject citizens to mental care).
The law is actually a lot kinder than the people.
Not really. Admitting to needing therapy can lead to all different types of awful things... Such as that being used against you in custody hearings. Or having an order of protection placed against you for your children.
Thoughts on trigger warnings... They're not there to label content as bad. They're there to label it as something that could trigger someone.
There is plenty of stuff out there that could trigger someone that isn't bad. Putting a warning on that stuff is basically just someone going "hey, I don't want to hurt someone who doesn't know what they're getting into". Which is a kindness. And isn't difficult.
You literally don't understand one word I'm saying.
Edit: oh wow and you are a massive racist.
Yeah I'm done talking with you. Learn to read.
Apparently I don't? Could you provide examples of how I am racist... I am starting to think you don't understand the meaning of the word. People disagreeing with you and poking holes in your argument is not a racist thing...
Thoughts on trigger warnings... They're not there to label content as bad. They're there to label it as something that could trigger someone.
There is plenty of stuff out there that could trigger someone that isn't bad. Putting a warning on that stuff is basically just someone going "hey, I don't want to hurt someone who doesn't know what they're getting into". Which is a kindness. And isn't difficult.
There is a problem though with that line of thought though. If so many things can cause a trigger can we realistically list all of them? If we only list for common ones how would it be different then a parental advisory? What confuses me most about the notion to put trigger warnings on everything is simply why we don't simply build on the existing rating system rather then trying to construct a secondary one?
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Thoughts on trigger warnings... They're not there to label content as bad. They're there to label it as something that could trigger someone.
There is plenty of stuff out there that could trigger someone that isn't bad. Putting a warning on that stuff is basically just someone going "hey, I don't want to hurt someone who doesn't know what they're getting into". Which is a kindness. And isn't difficult.
It applies particularly to University settings, but the concerns generalize.
Some main points:
There are reasons, however, for concern that even voluntary use of trigger warnings included on syllabi may be counterproductive to the educational experience... A trigger warning might lead a student to simply not read an assignment or it might elicit a response from students they otherwise would not have had, focusing them on one aspect of a text and thus precluding other reactions. If, for example, The House of Mirth or Anna Karenina carried a warning about suicide, students might overlook the other questions about wealth, love, deception, and existential anxiety that are what those books are actually about. Trigger warnings thus run the risk of reducing complex literary, historical, sociological and political insights to a few negative characterizations. By calling attention to certain content in a given work, trigger warnings also signal an expected response to the content (e.g., dismay, distress, disapproval), and eliminate the element of surprise and spontaneity that can enrich the reading experience and provide critical insight.
...
The classroom is not the appropriate venue to treat PTSD, which is a medical condition that requires serious medical treatment. Trigger warnings are an inadequate and diversionary response. Medical research suggests that triggers for individuals can be unpredictable, dependent on networks of association. So color, taste, smell, and sound may lead to flashbacks and panic attacks as often as the mention of actual forms of violence such as rape and war. The range of any student’s sensitivity is thus impossible to anticipate...
Instead of putting the onus for avoiding such responses on the teacher, cases of serious trauma should be referred to student health services. Faculty should, of course, be sensitive that such reactions may occur in their classrooms, but they should not be held responsible for them. Instead, as with other disabilities, a student diagnosed with PTSD should, in advance, agree on a plan for treatment with the relevant health advisors who, in some cases, may want to alert teachers to the presence of a trauma victim in their classroom. The Americans with Disabilities Act contains recommendations for reasonable accommodation to be made on an individual basis. This should be done without affecting other students’ exposure to material that has educational value.
Trigger warnings have their place in journalistic discussions, web forums, etc, but I wouldn't put them on art.
I also agree, though let's remember that in terms of this discussion some games *already do this*. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, as much as anyone can criticize the ridiculous airport massacre comes with a "This might be totally disturbing you guys!" and in fact - I may be mistaken - Modern Warfare 3 does exactly the same thing WRT its bombing scene in London. Hotline Miami 2 has been refused classification based on a sexual scene, that before anything begins clearly says "This is disturbing content, do you not want to see it?".
I am curious: Do you think those games are wrong for doing that?
But I do agree with the core point: I think trigger warnings in a course that covers books that have themes of suicide and similar are silly. You should know what you are getting in for when it comes to an academic environment beforehand. On the other hand, for random blog posts or discussions where it's likely to just come up from nowhere it can be a polite warning.
Trigger warnings have their place in journalistic discussions, web forums, etc, but I wouldn't put them on art.
I also agree, though let's remember that in terms of this discussion some games *already do this*. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, as much as anyone can criticize the ridiculous airport massacre comes with a "This might be totally disturbing you guys!" and in fact - I may be mistaken - Modern Warfare 3 does exactly the same thing WRT its bombing scene in London. Hotline Miami 2 has been refused classification based on a sexual scene, that before anything begins clearly says "This is disturbing content, do you not want to see it?".
I am curious: Do you think those games are wrong for doing that?
But I do agree with the core point: I think trigger warnings in a course that covers books that have themes of suicide and similar are silly. You should know what you are getting in for when it comes to an academic environment beforehand. On the other hand, for random blog posts or discussions where it's likely to just come up from nowhere it can be a polite warning.
Pretty much this. They're not required, but they're not a bad thing either. And they're not necessarily saying whatever is behind them is bad.
If a content creator decides to put a warning on their content great! If not, that's cool too.
To a certain extent, probably me being an arsehole, but I'm not yet convinced that spiders deserve a trigger warning.
Likewise, Classic Russian literature seems a bad thing to study if you're not willing to confront situations that a normal person would find uncomfortable. Specific examples like CoD:MW3 and bombs on the tube, I do completely understand though it seems that this would be done more in the style of the beginning of movie announcement that a modification of the whole ratings system. ("This game/movie contains images that those personally effected by the 7/7 bombings in London might find very uncomfortable" rather than "PG: Transport disaster".
+1
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
To a certain extent, probably me being an arsehole, but I'm not yet convinced that spiders deserve a trigger warning.
Fun fact, 90% of the people on facebook who have unfriended me have done so because I post numerous photos of spiders (I like photographing insects and arachnids as a hobby). I do just accept this though, because sharing my photography is important to me and I'm not upset with anyone who chooses to do this because they find spiders frightening (which is a position I disagree with, but understand). This will not stop me posting what I want on my facebook.
Trigger warnings have their place in journalistic discussions, web forums, etc, but I wouldn't put them on art.
I also agree, though let's remember that in terms of this discussion some games *already do this*. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, as much as anyone can criticize the ridiculous airport massacre comes with a "This might be totally disturbing you guys!" and in fact - I may be mistaken - Modern Warfare 3 does exactly the same thing WRT its bombing scene in London. Hotline Miami 2 has been refused classification based on a sexual scene, that before anything begins clearly says "This is disturbing content, do you not want to see it?".
I am curious: Do you think those games are wrong for doing that?
Not at all. It's up to the author to decide if they want to do it.
To a certain extent, probably me being an arsehole, but I'm not yet convinced that spiders deserve a trigger warning.
Fun fact, 90% of the people on facebook who have unfriended me have done so because I post numerous photos of spiders (I like photographing insects and arachnids as a hobby). I do just accept this though, because sharing my photography is important to me and I'm not upset with anyone who chooses to do this because they find spiders frightening (which is a position I disagree with, but understand). This will not stop me posting what I want on my facebook.
I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say that you are history's greatest monster.
Astaereth on
+5
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
By the way, entirely by accident I came to be aware of some remarks by Oscar Wilde during a very real trial which unfortunately led to his imprisonment and ruination of his career and lifestyle:
The part of C will tonight be played by Edward Carson, the defense attorney for the Marquess of Queensberry, with the remarkably cheeky W being commanded by the author himself, at our pleasure:
C--"Religions die when they are proved to be true." Is that true?
W—Yes; I hold that. It is a suggestion towards a philosophy of the absorption of religions by science, but it is too big a question to go into now.
C--Do you think that was a safe axiom to put forward for the philosophy of the young?
W--Most stimulating.
C--"If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out"?
W—That is a pleasing paradox, but I do not set very high store on it as an axiom.
C-- Is it good for the young?
W—Anything is good that stimulates thought in whatever age.
C--Whether moral or immoral?
W—There is no such thing as morality or immorality in thought. There is immoral emotion.
C--"Pleasure is the only thing one should live for"?
W—I think that the realization of oneself is the prime aim of life, and to realize oneself through pleasure is finer than to do so through pain. I am, on that point, entirely on the side of the ancients—the Greeks. It is a pagan idea.
C--"A truth ceases to be true when more than one person believes in it"?
W—Perfectly. That would be my metaphysical definition of truth; something so personal that the same truth could never be appreciated by two minds.
C--"The condition of perfection is idleness: the aim of perfection is youth"?
W—Oh, yes; I think so. Half of it is true. The life of contemplation is the highest life, and so recognized by the philosopher.
C--"There is something tragic about the enormous number of young men there are in England at the present moment who start life with perfect profiles, and end by adopting some useful profession"?
W—I should think that the young have enough sense of humor.
C--You think that is humorous?
W—I think it is an amusing paradox, an amusing play on words....
C--This is in your introduction to Dorian Gray: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written." That expresses your view?
W—My view on art, yes.
C--Then, I take it, that no matter how immoral a book may be, if it is well written, it is, in your opinion, a good book?
W—Yes, if it were well written so as to produce a sense of beauty, which is the highest sense of which a human being can be capable. If it were badly written, it would produce a sense of disgust.
C--Then a well-written book putting forward perverted moral views may be a good book?
W—No work of art ever puts forward views. Views belong to people who are not artists.
C--A perverted novel might be a good book?
W--I don't know what you mean by a "perverted" novel.
C--Then I will suggest Dorian Gray as open to the interpretation of being such a novel?
W--That could only be to brutes and illiterates. The views of Philistines on art are incalculably stupid.
C--An illiterate person reading Dorian Gray might consider it such a novel?
W—The views of illiterates on art are unaccountable. I am concerned only with my view of art. I don't care twopence what other people think of it.
C--The majority of persons would come under your definition of Philistines and illiterates?
W—I have found wonderful exceptions.
C--Do you think that the majority of people live up to the position you are giving us?
W—I am afraid they are not cultivated enough.
C--Not cultivated enough to draw the distinction between a good book and a bad book?
W—Certainly not.
C--The affection and love of the artist of Dorian Gray might lead an ordinary individual to believe that it might have a certain tendency?
W—I have no knowledge of the views of ordinary individuals.
C--You did not prevent the ordinary individual from buying your book?
W—I have never discouraged him.
(by the way, the rest of the cross-examination is just as delightful, should you wish to read it, though it tragically yet masterfully foreshadows his fate)
In addition, he has said:
The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame.
I have seen these sentiments echoed by persons unfamiliar with his works, meaning that there is some common logic that leads us to be repulsed at heaping the sins of the world on an inanimate object, serving only as an innocent vessel of the communication of evil minds. I don't profess any hatred for Hatred, but all the same I do not laud the creators as persecuted geniuses. I'd rather not punish the work for the sins of the worker. If it turns out to be well made I will pluck it from them and burn the rest in any way that I am empowered to do.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+9
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
By the way, entirely by accident I came to be aware of some remarks by Oscar Wilde during a very real trial which unfortunately led to his imprisonment and ruination of his career and lifestyle:
The part of C will tonight be played by Edward Carson, the defense attorney for the Marquess of Queensberry, with the remarkably cheeky W being commanded by the author himself, at our pleasure:
C--"Religions die when they are proved to be true." Is that true?
W—Yes; I hold that. It is a suggestion towards a philosophy of the absorption of religions by science, but it is too big a question to go into now.
C--Do you think that was a safe axiom to put forward for the philosophy of the young?
W--Most stimulating.
C--"If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out"?
W—That is a pleasing paradox, but I do not set very high store on it as an axiom.
C-- Is it good for the young?
W—Anything is good that stimulates thought in whatever age.
C--Whether moral or immoral?
W—There is no such thing as morality or immorality in thought. There is immoral emotion.
C--"Pleasure is the only thing one should live for"?
W—I think that the realization of oneself is the prime aim of life, and to realize oneself through pleasure is finer than to do so through pain. I am, on that point, entirely on the side of the ancients—the Greeks. It is a pagan idea.
C--"A truth ceases to be true when more than one person believes in it"?
W—Perfectly. That would be my metaphysical definition of truth; something so personal that the same truth could never be appreciated by two minds.
C--"The condition of perfection is idleness: the aim of perfection is youth"?
W—Oh, yes; I think so. Half of it is true. The life of contemplation is the highest life, and so recognized by the philosopher.
C--"There is something tragic about the enormous number of young men there are in England at the present moment who start life with perfect profiles, and end by adopting some useful profession"?
W—I should think that the young have enough sense of humor.
C--You think that is humorous?
W—I think it is an amusing paradox, an amusing play on words....
C--This is in your introduction to Dorian Gray: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written." That expresses your view?
W—My view on art, yes.
C--Then, I take it, that no matter how immoral a book may be, if it is well written, it is, in your opinion, a good book?
W—Yes, if it were well written so as to produce a sense of beauty, which is the highest sense of which a human being can be capable. If it were badly written, it would produce a sense of disgust.
C--Then a well-written book putting forward perverted moral views may be a good book?
W—No work of art ever puts forward views. Views belong to people who are not artists.
C--A perverted novel might be a good book?
W--I don't know what you mean by a "perverted" novel.
C--Then I will suggest Dorian Gray as open to the interpretation of being such a novel?
W--That could only be to brutes and illiterates. The views of Philistines on art are incalculably stupid.
C--An illiterate person reading Dorian Gray might consider it such a novel?
W—The views of illiterates on art are unaccountable. I am concerned only with my view of art. I don't care twopence what other people think of it.
C--The majority of persons would come under your definition of Philistines and illiterates?
W—I have found wonderful exceptions.
C--Do you think that the majority of people live up to the position you are giving us?
W—I am afraid they are not cultivated enough.
C--Not cultivated enough to draw the distinction between a good book and a bad book?
W—Certainly not.
C--The affection and love of the artist of Dorian Gray might lead an ordinary individual to believe that it might have a certain tendency?
W—I have no knowledge of the views of ordinary individuals.
C--You did not prevent the ordinary individual from buying your book?
W—I have never discouraged him.
(by the way, the rest of the cross-examination is just as delightful, should you wish to read it, though it tragically yet masterfully foreshadows his fate)
In addition, he has said:
The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame.
I have seen these sentiments echoed by persons unfamiliar with his works, meaning that there is some common logic that leads us to be repulsed at heaping the sins of the world on an inanimate object, serving only as an innocent vessel of the communication of evil minds. I don't profess any hatred for Hatred, but all the same I do not laud the creators as persecuted geniuses. I'd rather not punish the work for the sins of the worker. If it turns out to be well made I will pluck it from them and burn the rest in any way that I am empowered to do.
I dont understand how people keep saying that Hatred is just like every other violent video game even after it got a AO rating
Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason for that
It's being compared to a handful of games for very specific reasons. Hotline Miami because that game is also about a psychopath on a violent rampage; GTA because that's the most popular violent video game out there (with comparisons discussing how the game's context alters the perception of its content and whether that's valid); Manhunt (one of the two dozen or so games to ever get an AO rating); and Postal (which as I understand it is also considered to be a crassly violent game about a man on a shooting spree).
But I think the wider point is that it's hard to conceive of anything Hatred could be that would make it dangerous in any way that wouldn't apply to most violent video games.
Pages late because I only check this thread once a week
But the difference that we keep staying over and over again with hatred is that the people you are killing are different
In all the games you listed the people you kill fight back. They are all also violent people who are all gangsters or psychopaths like you are and will attack you first if given the chance
In Hatred they are civilians that will run screaming and crying and begging for their lives. They are people who were shopping or jogging that you decide to track down and murder in cold blood
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I dont understand how people keep saying that Hatred is just like every other violent video game even after it got a AO rating
Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason for that
It's being compared to a handful of games for very specific reasons. Hotline Miami because that game is also about a psychopath on a violent rampage; GTA because that's the most popular violent video game out there (with comparisons discussing how the game's context alters the perception of its content and whether that's valid); Manhunt (one of the two dozen or so games to ever get an AO rating); and Postal (which as I understand it is also considered to be a crassly violent game about a man on a shooting spree).
But I think the wider point is that it's hard to conceive of anything Hatred could be that would make it dangerous in any way that wouldn't apply to most violent video games.
Pages late because I only check this thread once a week
But the difference that we keep staying over and over again with hatred is that the people you are killing are different
In all the games you listed the people you kill fight back. They are all also violent people who are all gangsters or psychopaths like you are and will attack you first if given the chance
In Hatred they are civilians that will run screaming and crying and begging for their lives. They are people who were shopping or jogging that you decide to track down and murder in cold blood
Uh...
I'm pretty sure that all those games also include plenty of killing of innocent people or semi-innocent people. Except for Manhunt I guess.
It's just that Hatred seems to be nothing but that. But I think that just makes it a sucky game, there doesn't seem to be much of a game there at all and it doesn't say anything interesting.
I dont understand how people keep saying that Hatred is just like every other violent video game even after it got a AO rating
Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason for that
It's being compared to a handful of games for very specific reasons. Hotline Miami because that game is also about a psychopath on a violent rampage; GTA because that's the most popular violent video game out there (with comparisons discussing how the game's context alters the perception of its content and whether that's valid); Manhunt (one of the two dozen or so games to ever get an AO rating); and Postal (which as I understand it is also considered to be a crassly violent game about a man on a shooting spree).
But I think the wider point is that it's hard to conceive of anything Hatred could be that would make it dangerous in any way that wouldn't apply to most violent video games.
Pages late because I only check this thread once a week
But the difference that we keep staying over and over again with hatred is that the people you are killing are different
In all the games you listed the people you kill fight back. They are all also violent people who are all gangsters or psychopaths like you are and will attack you first if given the chance
In Hatred they are civilians that will run screaming and crying and begging for their lives. They are people who were shopping or jogging that you decide to track down and murder in cold blood
Uh...
I'm pretty sure that all those games also include plenty of killing of innocent people or semi-innocent people. Except for Manhunt I guess.
It's just that Hatred seems to be nothing but that. But I think that just makes it a sucky game, there doesn't seem to be much of a game there at all and it doesn't say anything interesting.
Well, it can be unfortunately argued that non-combatants in other games are collateral damage. I mean, I don't try to attack them, but it happens. (But when a game has in-game goals or achievements for doing some reprehensible shit, I save and reload out of principle or temporarily shift my thinking that I'm grinding experience. However, a game where it's straight up nothing but killing non-combatants? Fuck that noise.)
To a certain extent, probably me being an arsehole, but I'm not yet convinced that spiders deserve a trigger warning.
Fun fact, 90% of the people on facebook who have unfriended me have done so because I post numerous photos of spiders (I like photographing insects and arachnids as a hobby). I do just accept this though, because sharing my photography is important to me and I'm not upset with anyone who chooses to do this because they find spiders frightening (which is a position I disagree with, but understand). This will not stop me posting what I want on my facebook.
How can you disagree with someone who has to remove someone from their facebook feed who regularly posts photos of things that terrify them? Especially when that person is well aware of the phobia those pictures are associated with.
To a certain extent, probably me being an arsehole, but I'm not yet convinced that spiders deserve a trigger warning.
Fun fact, 90% of the people on facebook who have unfriended me have done so because I post numerous photos of spiders (I like photographing insects and arachnids as a hobby). I do just accept this though, because sharing my photography is important to me and I'm not upset with anyone who chooses to do this because they find spiders frightening (which is a position I disagree with, but understand). This will not stop me posting what I want on my facebook.
How can you disagree with someone who has to remove someone from their facebook feed who regularly posts photos of things that terrify them? Especially when that person is well aware of the phobia those pictures are associated with.
I think he means he doesn't find them scary but accepts that some people do.
Posts
Prima just did.
It's not at all clear to me that these statements are any different in context. If you feel that they are, feel free to explain in more detail how the context changed the fundamental intent of the statements from how I portrayed them.
How is what I put a racist statement? Look at the statistics black people commit more crime per person. That isn;t a racist statement that is a factual statement. You can look into why that is but numbers are not racists I am sorry.
The people who received scholarships over me received ones I was not allowed to apply for simply due to me being a white male. If you want to fight racism start with government approved racism then work your way down. I beat out both (the scholarship was based around credit averages) but since I wasn't a women nor an native I received no support. I can only point to two examples of this since we are talking about personal experience.
What sexist and racist beliefs am I holding? I ask because you seem like the kind of person who likes to use weasel words so please spell it out. Explain how anything I have said is either racist or sexist?
For those with trigger warnings. Yeah I admit I went a bit overboard with ridiculing them I don't personally see why we have trigger warnings as I find parental adversary stickers to be informative enough but I can understand why they are there.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I suppose. I was reading the question as asking if saying something akin to "trigger warning: the following contains stuff that would be Offensive to Sensitive Babies" was a use of trigger warnings to shame people into agreement.
on the other hand, I read prima as saying that trigger warnings are the tools of idiots and assholes.
which I now see are one and the same.
doesn't really invalidate the point of what I said.
upon thinking it over, I retract my statement.
I am maybe a little concerned about trigger warnings being used as a kind of intellectual gang sign, rather than an honest warning about content. For example, someone could put a big sticker saying "TRIGGER WARNING: THIS BOOK IS SEXIST" on all of the books in the library that don't agree with their views on gender. At that point it's less of a warning and more of an attack on the people who like the book, a statement that their views are unwelcome and that you can demonstrate your mastery of an area by only allowing your own symbols. But I think those issues are fairly easy to solve by putting content warnings in the fine print and using neutral descriptive language where possible.
In general though, content warnings seem to me like one of our strongest weapons against suppression and censorship. The censor says "This book offends some people, so we must prevent you from reading it." Content warnings say "I am explaining exactly how this might offend you in advance, so if you continue to listen past that point it is on you." It seems to nicely solve the problem of people seeing media they don't like and being emotionally hurt by it.
That was more or less what I meant though I can across over hostile. Its how I see trigger warnings used that I find worrying I fail to see what they bring to the table that could not simply be put into the existing rating system.
This is assuming that we are only talking about PTSD triggers.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You literally don't understand one word I'm saying.
Edit: oh wow and you are a massive racist.
Yeah I'm done talking with you. Learn to read.
And this is a major problem. There really is nothing for a citizen to gain by seeking mental health care except to be ostracized, lose legal rights, and potentially even lose freedom (in states that allow LE to involuntarily subject citizens to mental care).
Of course, but therapy isn't a magic bullet. People can have all the therapy in the world and still not be healed.
Unless it's attributable to some associated physical disorder, you only know this when enough people give up. And people who are not successfully treated tend to have compromised independence in their daily life. A point where triggers elicit maladaptive thought should never be the endpoint of care.
In fact, treatment of PTSD centers around the idea of disabusing the sufferer of the perception of these triggers as harmful. The most empirically successful CBT treatments for rape are Prolonged Exposure and Cognitive Processing Therapy, both of which involve the patient describing the event in vivid detail and playing it over and over, with or without contextualization and coping strategies, until the brain gets the idea that the threat associated with these triggers is fiction.
Triggers in the environment, like a movie scene, are in uncontrolled situations and establish more associations with perceived harm, feeding the disorder. They're not helpful. However, successful treatment does mean that the person can encounter these without enduring psychological harm. This is unlike addiction or personality disorders, in which lifelong abstinence can be deemed as an acceptable endpoint.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The law is actually a lot kinder than the people.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Not really. Admitting to needing therapy can lead to all different types of awful things... Such as that being used against you in custody hearings. Or having an order of protection placed against you for your children.
There is plenty of stuff out there that could trigger someone that isn't bad. Putting a warning on that stuff is basically just someone going "hey, I don't want to hurt someone who doesn't know what they're getting into". Which is a kindness. And isn't difficult.
Apparently I don't? Could you provide examples of how I am racist... I am starting to think you don't understand the meaning of the word. People disagreeing with you and poking holes in your argument is not a racist thing...
There is a problem though with that line of thought though. If so many things can cause a trigger can we realistically list all of them? If we only list for common ones how would it be different then a parental advisory? What confuses me most about the notion to put trigger warnings on everything is simply why we don't simply build on the existing rating system rather then trying to construct a secondary one?
I pretty much subscribe to the American Association of University Professors' position on trigger warnings.
It applies particularly to University settings, but the concerns generalize.
Some main points:
I also agree, though let's remember that in terms of this discussion some games *already do this*. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, as much as anyone can criticize the ridiculous airport massacre comes with a "This might be totally disturbing you guys!" and in fact - I may be mistaken - Modern Warfare 3 does exactly the same thing WRT its bombing scene in London. Hotline Miami 2 has been refused classification based on a sexual scene, that before anything begins clearly says "This is disturbing content, do you not want to see it?".
I am curious: Do you think those games are wrong for doing that?
But I do agree with the core point: I think trigger warnings in a course that covers books that have themes of suicide and similar are silly. You should know what you are getting in for when it comes to an academic environment beforehand. On the other hand, for random blog posts or discussions where it's likely to just come up from nowhere it can be a polite warning.
Pretty much this. They're not required, but they're not a bad thing either. And they're not necessarily saying whatever is behind them is bad.
If a content creator decides to put a warning on their content great! If not, that's cool too.
Likewise, Classic Russian literature seems a bad thing to study if you're not willing to confront situations that a normal person would find uncomfortable. Specific examples like CoD:MW3 and bombs on the tube, I do completely understand though it seems that this would be done more in the style of the beginning of movie announcement that a modification of the whole ratings system. ("This game/movie contains images that those personally effected by the 7/7 bombings in London might find very uncomfortable" rather than "PG: Transport disaster".
Fun fact, 90% of the people on facebook who have unfriended me have done so because I post numerous photos of spiders (I like photographing insects and arachnids as a hobby). I do just accept this though, because sharing my photography is important to me and I'm not upset with anyone who chooses to do this because they find spiders frightening (which is a position I disagree with, but understand). This will not stop me posting what I want on my facebook.
Not at all. It's up to the author to decide if they want to do it.
I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say that you are history's greatest monster.
temp or perma, I wonder.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The part of C will tonight be played by Edward Carson, the defense attorney for the Marquess of Queensberry, with the remarkably cheeky W being commanded by the author himself, at our pleasure:
(by the way, the rest of the cross-examination is just as delightful, should you wish to read it, though it tragically yet masterfully foreshadows his fate)
In addition, he has said:
I have seen these sentiments echoed by persons unfamiliar with his works, meaning that there is some common logic that leads us to be repulsed at heaping the sins of the world on an inanimate object, serving only as an innocent vessel of the communication of evil minds. I don't profess any hatred for Hatred, but all the same I do not laud the creators as persecuted geniuses. I'd rather not punish the work for the sins of the worker. If it turns out to be well made I will pluck it from them and burn the rest in any way that I am empowered to do.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is in poor taste, guys. Don't do this.
I would awesome that again, if I could.
Pages late because I only check this thread once a week
But the difference that we keep staying over and over again with hatred is that the people you are killing are different
In all the games you listed the people you kill fight back. They are all also violent people who are all gangsters or psychopaths like you are and will attack you first if given the chance
In Hatred they are civilians that will run screaming and crying and begging for their lives. They are people who were shopping or jogging that you decide to track down and murder in cold blood
Uh...
I'm pretty sure that all those games also include plenty of killing of innocent people or semi-innocent people. Except for Manhunt I guess.
It's just that Hatred seems to be nothing but that. But I think that just makes it a sucky game, there doesn't seem to be much of a game there at all and it doesn't say anything interesting.
Well, it can be unfortunately argued that non-combatants in other games are collateral damage. I mean, I don't try to attack them, but it happens. (But when a game has in-game goals or achievements for doing some reprehensible shit, I save and reload out of principle or temporarily shift my thinking that I'm grinding experience. However, a game where it's straight up nothing but killing non-combatants? Fuck that noise.)
How can you disagree with someone who has to remove someone from their facebook feed who regularly posts photos of things that terrify them? Especially when that person is well aware of the phobia those pictures are associated with.
I think he means he doesn't find them scary but accepts that some people do.