Uploaded by DanielTepesKraus 
908x494 JPG 153 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
You won’t be needing them where she’s taking you.
Source
not provided yet
You can call them victims if you want, and a few of them might genuinely have been victimized by the mean words of others at some point, but anyone who does things like using “check your privilege” as an all-purpose strawman to demonize the concept of justice isn’t trying to be constructive about it.
Eh, that feels a bit chicken and egg to me. Is the current state of discourse the result of well-intended but ill-informed individuals who misused concepts to attack those they disliked? Or is it the result of people who care more about their own enjoyment than the effects it may have on others, and would lash out at those who would seek to call notice to that?
Certainly, there have been people who would fit either description since before the start of the internet - and such individuals inevitably create their mirrors. A person wrongly targeted by an aggressive activist is unlikely to consider the theory again in the future, believing they understand it based on their exposure to its warped application. A person who dismisses all reasonable debate before waving pictures of their body parts everywhere in response will no doubt lead some to conclude that they might as well just try and shout down their obviously deranged opposition in the future.
At this point, I think it’s just best to try and explain the concepts and their applications to people while being aware that there’s a good deal of misinformation on both sides to be wary of, rather than try and guess who shot first. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle at this point, and only by proper education can we break it.
It wasn’t demonized by the targets of hatred, it was demonized by people who hate it so intensely that they’re physically injured by the thought of it.
@Keith Mowz
It hasn’t “gone from” caring about others to that strawman. It’s been strawmanned by people who feel oppressed by the suggestion to care about others and want to stamp out others’ speech to protect their rights.
That happened around the time people started using the words “social justice” to describe the targets of their personal social justice wars. The reason it’s so hard to discuss is that people want to stamp out the entire concept, apparently for some strange version of free speech. Hence the constant repetition of “CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE” in strawman form without even attempting to assign a meaning to the term; it’s an “evil” phrase, so it’s supposed to be hated and not understood.
Only because that’s exactly what it is.
At some point, social activism on the internet went from caring about other people to “I don’t like/disagree with [thing/person/idea] therefore IT MUST BE DESTROYED.”
Huh, that sounds less like “Trigger Warning” and more like “Trigger Elimination”. And a bit impractical; how are we supposed to discuss sexual assault prevention if we can’t talk about sexual assault? I mean, that’s one of the origins of trigger warnings - allowing victims to be able to participate in conversations regarding the prevention of rape and harassment while allowing them to avoid certain things that they were not yet able to cope with. It seems like it’s rather silencing victims to make it completely impossible to share their lived experiences.
Okay, to be honest, I couldn’t get past number 6.
It’s now used for stuff like “this triggers me” or “you’re triggering the rest of us.” It’s not even “this upsets me personally,” it’s more “this might offend some people, so delete your post/blog/profile and apologize.”
>>but ’trigger warnings’ have kind of turned into ’Don’t mention these things I don’t like because its totes triggering me yo’.
It’s been a while since I’ve been anywhere that deals in them, but wasn’t the idea of trigger warnings just “Put a label at the top/in the tags of what you’re writing if it might trigger people”? Is that out of vogue again these days?
I’ve always thought of triggers like crutches: You lean on them while you heal, but there comes a time when you have to cast them away and stand on your own two feet once again.
The raw concept is not at all a bad thing and you’ll find very few people who actually disagree with it out of anything besides ignorance or out of spite for having it weaponized by the SJWs.
Its gone from “hey try to consider how people who aren’t you feel about this” to “you’re not allowed to say or do things that might even potentially make extremely sensitive people offended” or the more pithy phrase “your rights end where my feelings begin”.
Its like triggers. The idea is perfectly valid and I support not giving people who have gone through traumata legit panic attacks, but ‘trigger warnings’ have kind of turned into ‘Don’t mention these things I don’t like because its totes triggering me yo’.
Sadly, it’s really not the concept itself that is bad. It’s the downright vicious, aggrandizing, and sexist mentality of the “feminists” on Tumblr and the like who have demonized it.
For example, I attended a seminar a few years back by Dr. Jackson Katz. He’s one of the leading anti-sexism activists in all of North America. He uses this concept in his speeches, but does so in a very positive, intelligent, and well researched manner. He doesn’t attack or belittle people with it, he encourages people to be positive role models and be the change they want to see in the world. Look him up, seriously.
Put that concept in the hands of the social weinermeisters like April Davis and her ilk (for example), and it turns ugly. Let social parasites like them use it as a means to an end and as a tool to attack people they don’t like over concepts they don’t like, and it cheapens the effect of it and makes it into a bad thing. They’re the bad apples that have spoiled the entire bushel, basically.
Long story short, put in the hands of a mature and educated person who actually cares, and it’s a good thing. Put in the hands of inarticulate spoiled little brats, and it becomes a enjoyably mockable internet meme.
Derogatory? How? I mean, I can get if you disagree, but that’s not the same as being derogatory. Derogatory would be if she said “male bronies are arrogant shitlords” or something like that. IDK, that’s at least how I see it.
>It’s just saying that people should try to consider how they might be more advantaged and be more open to the thoughts of people who feel less so.
and doing so in a way that’s very derogatory and ignorant towards the people she’s talking about.
Okay, call me crazy, but I don’t see what’s so bad about that list. It’s just saying that people should try to consider how they might be more advantaged and be more open to the thoughts of people who feel less so.
She’s not even demonizing men or anything, all in all she seems pretty calm about the whole thing and doesn’t go out of her way to insult anyone.
It’s a feminist / social warrior thing that basically measures exactly how privileged a particular person is, based on their gender, race, etc. It’s essentially a non-sequitur for winning such an argument, but it’s long since been turned into a complete joke.
For an example, here’s a list: >>574662 of the privileges male bronies have. Should you feel weak and like you’re going to pass out from the idiocy, lay down on your side so you don’t choke on vomit while unconscious.
That’s what it’s devolved into, partly due to actual misuse, and partly due to so many people using it as weak satire.
What it’s supposed to mean is, “try to consider the perspectives of those more disadvantaged than you before saying something that might be insensitive,” but that meaning has been all but completely lost now.
It’s feminese for “I don’t like you”.