4 ms·
The word "triggered" should really be reserved for military vets and those who have experienced traumatic events in their past that would cause severe distress,
by faitswulff 9y ago
The word "triggered" should really be reserved for military vets and those who have experienced traumatic events in their past that would cause severe distress, not as a synonym for "annoyed."
A veteran who relives the horrors of war when fireworks go off is not nearly in the same space as a developer who is annoyed that someone misused technical jargon.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Xeoncross 9y ago> The word "triggered" should really be reserved for military vets Certainly not. While many military personal certainly have faced mind-altering situations, they are far from the only ones who have ever suffered from traumatic events. Children and Women are the subjects of the most twisted and abusive stories I've ever been able to fathom.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- therapeutic 9y agoThe full quote is: > The word "triggered" should really be reserved for military vets AND those who have experienced traumatic events in their past that would cause severe distress (emphasis mine) You can't just cut a sentence in half and then try to form an argument against it. That's not fair.
- Xeoncross 9y agoI agree, I don't think it said that when I wrote my comment.
- faitswulff 9y agoIt likely did not, I edited a few times.
- wale 9y agolmao. "You can't just cut a sentence in half and then try to form an argument against it. That's not fair." -- legit not fair
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Mithaldu 9y agoAt least people misusing the word "triggered" provide a good signal that they're posting in bad faith. :)
- o_____________o 9y agoWords shift in meaning over time. They're defined by the active usage, not the ideal usage. Resisting that change is like trying to fence in water, however righteous it feels.
- faitswulff 9y agoAs with most things, the choice is more difficult than either giving up and accepting a new, more lax definition, or "righteously" rejecting it. That process requires an application of judgment. In this case, my judgment says that it's an unnecessary cheapening of a psychological term, and that pointing out its origins might help people understand why. Simply giving up on definitions means always ceding power.
- o_____________o 9y agoIt's not giving up so much as accepting that there's theater in chastising linguistic drift. Telling strangers they shouldn't use a newer, ironic form of a word is as hopeless as The Very Smart Guy raging at people over "literally" not being literal. The entire world is participating in shaping English and we have no Académie Française equivalent. Sometimes the changes are unflattering. That said, I do appreciate your points and see your intention with empathy about this word in particular.
- faitswulff 9y agoI don't think that the fact that there _is_ theater renders the underlying struggle worthless, though. Words have meanings, and in the case of law, quite serious repercussions - eg. corporate personhood. It's not so much "you shouldn't use that word in that manner because of some linguistic pedantry" but "you shouldn't use that word because the externalities of doing so have outsized effects on certain people," or for the self-centered and machiavellian, "you make yourself look bad when you use it such." As you say, it is a matter of empathy. The N-word has been around for a while - it's still not acceptable for certain people to say it[0]. As for why, that's a matter of education, and it begins with pointing it out. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO15S3WC9pg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO15S3WC9pg