4 ms·

How do you determine so confidently that American (and its derivative) culture has gotten significantly more sensitive, and the notions of abuse and trauma have

How do you determine so confidently that American (and its derivative) culture has gotten significantly more sensitive, and the notions of abuse and trauma have grown to significantly dangerous levels? All the author did in this article was point out a few isolated incidents and then proceeded to generalize on it. Maybe it just seems like it to us as a result of being overexposed to media (both social and mass), but perceptions drawn from media are very rarely (if ever) reflective of the actual reality. A few outlying observations do not automatically imply this entire generation is more (or less) sensitive than the generation before.

didibus 5y ago
I'm also not sure why we should trust anything coming from the field of psychology. It's never managed to predict anything properly, and has a poor track record overall. And the issues you call out are rampant in the field I feel.
bmab 5y ago
How to determine? Just follow any open source project that has been slowly taken over by mediocre representatives of U.S. corporations (i.e., almost any project). The new mediocre ruling class uses criminally charged language ("harm", "suffering", "effect on people", "consequences"). There are "reporting" links everywhere. Reporting others is encouraged like in the German Democratic Republic. All this has changed drastically if you compare it to 10 years ago. The question you ask is interesting though: Are younger people being used in the social justice power games played by Boomer and Gen X administrators? That would be similar to white consultants lecturing about people of color to boost their incomes. I think it is a bit of both. Helicopter parenting has made teenagers more fragile and your friendly administrator sees an opportunity to administrate and get power and cash.
- enkid 5y ago
  You're saying because you can quickly flag abusive content on social media, we've become too sensitive to harm? I don't see how one implies the other.
- wirrbel 5y ago
  Have you lived in the GDR? How can you draw this comparison?
  - cvacc 5y ago
    Yes, I have. I see the same methods being used, though the outcomes are "just" cancellations and not imprisonment (yet!).
    - wirrbel 5y ago
      You seem to equate a 'report' button with a terror regime. So, is the federal republic of Germany which allows you to report something to the police for investigation also 'like the GDR'?
      - blueflow 5y ago
        Don't forget the Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter, please. The denouncing culture in the DDR is nowhere comparable to what happened in the BRD.
  - blueflow 5y ago
    The "loosing the job" part is almost the same. In the GDR, the state went large ways to distance themselves from facism and the anti-semitism of the past, while in reality, the jews weren't treated in a reasonable ways, couldn't get their property back and such nuisances. My mom was a teacher in the GDR, and she made the mistake of asking "How are the jews in the GDR doing now?".
- dartharva 5y ago
  But.. are these "mediocre representatives of U.S. corporations" representative of the average U.S. citizen?
HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
> How do you determine so confidently that American (and its derivative) culture has gotten significantly more sensitive, and the notions of abuse and trauma have grown to significantly dangerous levels? Eh, one grandfather of mine fell off a horse as a child and his arm never grew again, and became useless. My grandmother's siblings both died, one by murder and one by illness. They endured all manner of dangerous and harrowing situations, but I never heard a single word from them about abuse or trauma. They just dealt with hardship and put it behind them. Same with my parents. Deaths of children, estrangement from relatives, persecution of various kinds, they never suggested they'd been traumatized. Many young people, on the other hand, will tell you in absolute seriousness that they've been traumatized by the speech that they think someone they disagree with would give. Not by a speech that even has been given, but one they imagine that person might give in the future if given that opportunity. They will tell you that it's traumatic just to know that somebody has uttered an opinion with which they disagree -- hearing the opinion is not even required.
wirrbel 5y ago
I think it really gets interesting to look at this topic from a cross-cultural comparison angle, because really its the only perspective that allows you to gauge a certain variance, and what might be expected for a society in a liberal democracy. I am a German person having lived in the US and Canada for some time. And for physical safety interesting observations are that German playgrounds would probably be considered too harmful to get approval in the US, whereas electricity / wiring in houses and especially the 110 V power outlets seem really neglectful to my German eyes, like an accident waiting to happen. But, German kids survive German playgrounds and American children are not all electrocuted by 110V power outlets. Another interesting angle to look at this is the legal system. When I first came to the US I was really astonished to see TV ads not only for attorneys, but also for attorneys looking for participants in class-action law suits. So from an economical perspective, civil live can be 'mined' for cases worth pursuing by the attorneyship. I am not ruling out that Germany might have examples with similar dynamics but definitely its not as strong, the compensation payments lower and the possibilities for an attorney to make a huge profit from a case much lower. I think case-law might also make it easier for new classes of 'harm' to surface in courts. After a couple of of occasions, you have precedents whereas in a country with civil law you might have courts refuse a liability if there was no basis for it in the civil law. Overall, I do think that the notion of psychological harm shouldn't be neglected. Its easy to ridicule it citing cases like "Statue in underpants". Institutions would do best I think, if they established internal processes that would resolve problems gracefully and stop harm early on before having it escalated to the courts.
- superdude12 5y ago
  Isn’t 240V more likely to seriously harm someone?
  - parsimo2010 5y ago
    Germans use different plug types and have different electric safety regulations than in America. I believe GP was referencing those standards and not their mains voltage as why they are safer. It doesn’t matter what the voltage is if you do a good job at preventing kids from touching mains voltage.
crateless 5y ago
It is easier to determine the increased sensitivity as one could refer to the topics that come up in the media e.g. free speech, standardised testing, shifting language around womanhood e.g. birthing people. The issue of "dangerous" is much more subjective. That one is going to take a little while longer to play out. After all, what is wrong with increased sensitivity to "harm"? Then the next step becomes "what do we do to correct or mitigate the harm?" The effects of eliminating all hierarchy in education might be good? Hiring based on demographics rather than qualifications might be good? Who knows? Perhaps when policy becomes linked to the new notions of "harm" is the point when it becomes dangerous?
pessimizer 5y ago
The 1950s, a time of reduced sensitivity. The kind of reduced sensitivity where the military had to be called out to invade states, and put down actual riots, sparked by black children trying to go to school with the children of white parents who were definitely not triggered and not mad. It's the wild growth of certain sorts of sensitivities that certain sorts of people are finding a problem. Nobody remembers the "good old days" as a time of hedonism, where everybody did their own thing, where beliefs and behaviors weren't policed, and couldn't result in you being ostracized socially. In the good old days, you could not only get canceled, you could get lynched.
- mcphage 5y ago
  This is the real answer to bullshit articles like this. Kids today are too sensitive? Previous generations would throw a fit if a black person drank from the same water fountain, or sat near the front of the bus. That’s being over sensitive.
  - FleaFlicker99 5y ago
    No, people are concerned when 'kids' call out an innocent action (a glance, let's say) from a teacher a 'microaggression' and have their parents call in and threaten them. There are countless examples of this kind of behaviour across all of society now. Writing this off with a racist strawman argument that you just invented sounds like a bad faith response to me. Which honestly is one of the tactics (purposefully taking the least generous interpretation) that is so popular among the silence-is-violence crowd.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      …you think that I invented separate water fountains for white people and non-white people? Or forcing black people to the back of the bus? Are you that ignorant of US history?

didibus 5y ago

I'm also not sure why we should trust anything coming from the field of psychology. It's never managed to predict anything properly, and has a poor track record overall. And the issues you call out are rampant in the field I feel.

bmab 5y ago

How to determine? Just follow any open source project that has been slowly taken over by mediocre representatives of U.S. corporations (i.e., almost any project). The new mediocre ruling class uses criminally charged language ("harm", "suffering", "effect on people", "consequences"). There are "reporting" links everywhere. Reporting others is encouraged like in the German Democratic Republic. All this has changed drastically if you compare it to 10 years ago. The question you ask is interesting though: Are younger people being used in the social justice power games played by Boomer and Gen X administrators? That would be similar to white consultants lecturing about people of color to boost their incomes. I think it is a bit of both. Helicopter parenting has made teenagers more fragile and your friendly administrator sees an opportunity to administrate and get power and cash.

enkid 5y ago
You're saying because you can quickly flag abusive content on social media, we've become too sensitive to harm? I don't see how one implies the other.
wirrbel 5y ago
Have you lived in the GDR? How can you draw this comparison?
- cvacc 5y ago
  Yes, I have. I see the same methods being used, though the outcomes are "just" cancellations and not imprisonment (yet!).
  - wirrbel 5y ago
    You seem to equate a 'report' button with a terror regime. So, is the federal republic of Germany which allows you to report something to the police for investigation also 'like the GDR'?
    - blueflow 5y ago
      Don't forget the Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter, please. The denouncing culture in the DDR is nowhere comparable to what happened in the BRD.
- blueflow 5y ago
  The "loosing the job" part is almost the same. In the GDR, the state went large ways to distance themselves from facism and the anti-semitism of the past, while in reality, the jews weren't treated in a reasonable ways, couldn't get their property back and such nuisances. My mom was a teacher in the GDR, and she made the mistake of asking "How are the jews in the GDR doing now?".
dartharva 5y ago
But.. are these "mediocre representatives of U.S. corporations" representative of the average U.S. citizen?

HamburgerEmoji 5y ago

> How do you determine so confidently that American (and its derivative) culture has gotten significantly more sensitive, and the notions of abuse and trauma have grown to significantly dangerous levels? Eh, one grandfather of mine fell off a horse as a child and his arm never grew again, and became useless. My grandmother's siblings both died, one by murder and one by illness. They endured all manner of dangerous and harrowing situations, but I never heard a single word from them about abuse or trauma. They just dealt with hardship and put it behind them. Same with my parents. Deaths of children, estrangement from relatives, persecution of various kinds, they never suggested they'd been traumatized. Many young people, on the other hand, will tell you in absolute seriousness that they've been traumatized by the speech that they think someone they disagree with would give. Not by a speech that even has been given, but one they imagine that person might give in the future if given that opportunity. They will tell you that it's traumatic just to know that somebody has uttered an opinion with which they disagree -- hearing the opinion is not even required.

wirrbel 5y ago

I think it really gets interesting to look at this topic from a cross-cultural comparison angle, because really its the only perspective that allows you to gauge a certain variance, and what might be expected for a society in a liberal democracy. I am a German person having lived in the US and Canada for some time. And for physical safety interesting observations are that German playgrounds would probably be considered too harmful to get approval in the US, whereas electricity / wiring in houses and especially the 110 V power outlets seem really neglectful to my German eyes, like an accident waiting to happen. But, German kids survive German playgrounds and American children are not all electrocuted by 110V power outlets. Another interesting angle to look at this is the legal system. When I first came to the US I was really astonished to see TV ads not only for attorneys, but also for attorneys looking for participants in class-action law suits. So from an economical perspective, civil live can be 'mined' for cases worth pursuing by the attorneyship. I am not ruling out that Germany might have examples with similar dynamics but definitely its not as strong, the compensation payments lower and the possibilities for an attorney to make a huge profit from a case much lower. I think case-law might also make it easier for new classes of 'harm' to surface in courts. After a couple of of occasions, you have precedents whereas in a country with civil law you might have courts refuse a liability if there was no basis for it in the civil law. Overall, I do think that the notion of psychological harm shouldn't be neglected. Its easy to ridicule it citing cases like "Statue in underpants". Institutions would do best I think, if they established internal processes that would resolve problems gracefully and stop harm early on before having it escalated to the courts.

superdude12 5y ago
Isn’t 240V more likely to seriously harm someone?
- parsimo2010 5y ago
  Germans use different plug types and have different electric safety regulations than in America. I believe GP was referencing those standards and not their mains voltage as why they are safer. It doesn’t matter what the voltage is if you do a good job at preventing kids from touching mains voltage.

crateless 5y ago

It is easier to determine the increased sensitivity as one could refer to the topics that come up in the media e.g. free speech, standardised testing, shifting language around womanhood e.g. birthing people. The issue of "dangerous" is much more subjective. That one is going to take a little while longer to play out. After all, what is wrong with increased sensitivity to "harm"? Then the next step becomes "what do we do to correct or mitigate the harm?" The effects of eliminating all hierarchy in education might be good? Hiring based on demographics rather than qualifications might be good? Who knows? Perhaps when policy becomes linked to the new notions of "harm" is the point when it becomes dangerous?

pessimizer 5y ago

The 1950s, a time of reduced sensitivity. The kind of reduced sensitivity where the military had to be called out to invade states, and put down actual riots, sparked by black children trying to go to school with the children of white parents who were definitely not triggered and not mad. It's the wild growth of certain sorts of sensitivities that certain sorts of people are finding a problem. Nobody remembers the "good old days" as a time of hedonism, where everybody did their own thing, where beliefs and behaviors weren't policed, and couldn't result in you being ostracized socially. In the good old days, you could not only get canceled, you could get lynched.

mcphage 5y ago
This is the real answer to bullshit articles like this. Kids today are too sensitive? Previous generations would throw a fit if a black person drank from the same water fountain, or sat near the front of the bus. That’s being over sensitive.
- FleaFlicker99 5y ago
  No, people are concerned when 'kids' call out an innocent action (a glance, let's say) from a teacher a 'microaggression' and have their parents call in and threaten them. There are countless examples of this kind of behaviour across all of society now. Writing this off with a racist strawman argument that you just invented sounds like a bad faith response to me. Which honestly is one of the tactics (purposefully taking the least generous interpretation) that is so popular among the silence-is-violence crowd.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    …you think that I invented separate water fountains for white people and non-white people? Or forcing black people to the back of the bus? Are you that ignorant of US history?