3 ms·

>Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically correct language, trigger warnings, etc. What discredits trigger warnings is studies

by Nadya 11y ago

>Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically correct language, trigger warnings, etc. What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good. https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-dichotomy-of-trigger-warnings/ https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-dic... >How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people who would be offended or harmed. Excuse me, don't you mean straw person?

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good. It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell how selective these articles are. Even if it's not helpful for PTSD sufferers, it might still be useful for people in different situations. > Excuse me, don't you mean straw person? I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to that fallacy's name.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell how selective these articles are. I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of speech (particularly erring to the side of caution of gender normalization). >I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to that fallacy's name. Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're free to create one. As long as it is understood by the person you are communicating with - language has done its job. This might cause some confusion or require further explanation, since the term won't be a common part of peoples' shared vocabulary, but it will get the job done. The worst that could happen is people don't adopt the word, choose a different word, or re-purpose the word. On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral. What the meaning once was is not the meaning it holds now. This is common in both words and symbols. To share an extreme example of both re-purposing and a changed definition, see Pink Triangle [0] Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power. An insult is only ever as strong as you let it be. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of speech Myself, I'd consider the side of caution to be continuing to use them. Since they're warning people about something potentially a problem, I'd rather be careful in case people are relying on them. (That's for places where they're already used. Your approach might be better for new places.) > Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're free to create one. Oh sure, I realise that! I could say 'straw person' or maybe 'scarecrow fallacy'. > On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral. Wiktionary's page on 'guys' is interesting here (see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guys https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guys) - it's gender-neutral... sometimes. It's not always. It's a weird case. > Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power. I'm not sure this is always true. Insults against gay people being proscribed doesn't seem to have created new ones, but I may be wrong.
DanBC 11y ago
> What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good. You're misrepresenting the research. There's no problem with trigger warnings. The problem comes when people use the warning to then totally avoid that topic. What they should be doin is using the warning to prepare to engage withthe topic in a way that's safe for them.

by Nadya 11y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good. It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell how selective these articles are. Even if it's not helpful for PTSD sufferers, it might still be useful for people in different situations. > Excuse me, don't you mean straw person? I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to that fallacy's name.

Nadya 11y ago
>It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I can't tell how selective these articles are. I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of speech (particularly erring to the side of caution of gender normalization). >I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to that fallacy's name. Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're free to create one. As long as it is understood by the person you are communicating with - language has done its job. This might cause some confusion or require further explanation, since the term won't be a common part of peoples' shared vocabulary, but it will get the job done. The worst that could happen is people don't adopt the word, choose a different word, or re-purpose the word. On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral. What the meaning once was is not the meaning it holds now. This is common in both words and symbols. To share an extreme example of both re-purposing and a changed definition, see Pink Triangle [0] Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power. An insult is only ever as strong as you let it be. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of speech Myself, I'd consider the side of caution to be continuing to use them. Since they're warning people about something potentially a problem, I'd rather be careful in case people are relying on them. (That's for places where they're already used. Your approach might be better for new places.) > Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're free to create one. Oh sure, I realise that! I could say 'straw person' or maybe 'scarecrow fallacy'. > On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral. Wiktionary's page on 'guys' is interesting here (see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guys https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guys) - it's gender-neutral... sometimes. It's not always. It's a weird case. > Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power. I'm not sure this is always true. Insults against gay people being proscribed doesn't seem to have created new ones, but I may be wrong.

DanBC 11y ago

> What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do more harm than good. You're misrepresenting the research. There's no problem with trigger warnings. The problem comes when people use the warning to then totally avoid that topic. What they should be doin is using the warning to prepare to engage withthe topic in a way that's safe for them.