It's the same thing, sweetie. Constant exposure desensitizes. If you want a society where people don't object to children dying, make a society where childhood death is commonplace. If you want a society where men don't object to being exposed to brutality and carnage, a couple of wars is a good way to accomplish that. If women and minorities are just now - in the past century or so - starting to object to being belittled and treated in common parlance as worthless, that probably indicates that that's been a constant reality for them before.
Sorry, with people, in a remarkable display of dramatic irony, getting butthurt about people being too sensitive, I kind of assumed I was talking to someone under the age of ten.
Maybe you're a little too sensitive about manners.
If you were capable of saying anything with all due respect we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, so you probably shouldn't bother with the sarcasm.
I'm not under the age of ten you condescending piece of shit. What the post is saying is that people back in the day were willing to give their LIFE for their country and to take down the bastards that were killing innocent people. Now people just hide in their "safe spaces" and cry when they see something on the internet that slightly offends them. Some people need to stop being so damn sensitive and trying to censor everything.
And by the way, sweetie, I wasn't butthurt. I was simply agreeing with what the post said. But I couldn't possibly expect someone of your age to understand that anyway.
I'm sure it seems like it helps you to think that being an unempathetic dickweed is a precursor to being successful, but it's not. Your personal struggles and method of overcoming them do not negate someone else's, and not everyone has the privilege of not taking things seriously. You don't have to take trigger warnings seriously; several men and women I know (and twenty-year-old me) had to because some abuse survivors have panic attacks. If something's gonna make an ex-bulimic hurl, she needs to know about it beforehand so she doesn't end up damaging her esophagus.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
The reason that people back in the day were willing to give their life for their country was because we were at risk of potentially being invaded and losing control. There are very few threats nowadays that will make us lose control of our country, seeing as it's already going down the drain. Previous generations have made us all lose confidence in our country and in the rest of society, so of course we are not going to want to give our lives to save something like that. It is not a bad thing to be sensitive; and, of course, you are generalizing the population. While I agree that occasionally people are a bit too sensitive towards certain things, at the same time you need to understand that you don't know what that person is dealing with, especially when specific things can trigger them. Sorry if I worded that weird, I'm not sure if I got my point across.
Sooo, Bass, if someone laughts at your racist joke even if they think it isn't funny (whatever the reason, mainstream or their opinion) aren't they considering your feelings because they know how you fucking love racist jokes? My point is why would someone say something negative without a purpouse, it's better to shut up instead of putting their butthurt into someones face.
So what if you're offended? Nothing happens. You don't get offended and then wake up the next morning with scurvy or some shit. Let people be offended.
Also, I'm going to have to strongly disagree that the world has gone soft, as @bassinyoface has put it. The media in North America doesn't let you see what is really going on out here. Spend a few minutes on LiveLeak or BestGore.com and you will see just how hard the world really is. I'm sure that you meant Americans have gone soft, but I'm going to have to disagree there as well. Hundreds of millenials enlist in the armed forces every day. Three of my best friends are deployed to Turkey, Lebanon, and Afghanistan right now. The media hypes up and acts like a megaphone to the "typical lazy millennials" because it's the best news to report, and they speak the loudest. The warriors of this nation (America); are silent.
Random outlier, maybe, but the person I know who will call you out fastest on being a dick to other people (misgendering transgender friends, bullshit gender role stereotypes, etc.) has been in the Army since I've known him, so... at least eight years?
Honestly, at this juncture I'm guessing he just has to get it all out of his system between deployments.
BUT just because he has the balls to stand up and say something when somebody says or does something offensive doesn't necessarily make him soft.
Our military is instilled with the duty of protecting American citizens. Sometimes that protection comes in the form of calling out a bully. Honor, Courage, and Commitment are the Navy core values, and we are taught that it takes honor to acknowledge that something is not right and must be stopped, courage to be the one to stand up, and commitment to continue to do so. By silent warriors I mean that they are not screaming for safe spaces, they are fighting overseas with bullets and blood for them. And the media shows us the kids screaming for safe spaces in college campuses rather than the kids in the Middle East and Africa fighting for us, and those warriors aren't screaming for attention either.
OK, so the issue here is that the media is only portraying the radicalized version of the people asking for safe spaces? All a safe space is intended to be (whatever people try to twist it to sound like) is a place where students of various types of minority can be, in public, where they know they won't be harassed or accosted with specific types of behavior or language. I.E., someplace where if someone bullies them for being gay/black/Buddhist/whatever, the bully will be removed.
See, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone use an actual, legitimate argument against safe spaces instead of just mocking people for wanting them to exist.
Links, please, though, cause googling it just keeps leading to more think pieces and I'm not finding any actual studies.
I definitely agree with this whole trigger warning thing and safe space ideas being the beginnings of a self fulfilling prophecy as it talks about in The Atlantic piece. I also watched the video and towards the end he says that college students are being told that they are fragile, and once something traumatic happens to you you're done for. That's why I am so grateful for the way that my mom raised me; I was molested for a very long time as a child, and when my mom found out she took action and that person is in prison now. But she never once treated me like a victim, and I know that it killed her to have to say "It's over now, you are no victim, don't you cry." but it more good for me than any therapy session. She taught me to pick myself up and not dwell in the past, and not buy in to what society and my generation says: that I'm ruined. Because I'm not. I don't need a safe space or trigger warnings because I was raised to never rely on them as a crutch.
Would you rather teach your children how to function in spite of adversity or to expect that there will not be any adversity? The real world is gonna get you.
The problem with those pieces is that they both use anecdotal evidence (with defensive phrases such as "not to imply causation") and don't, that I can tell, use direct data or even citations (the closest I noted was Google trending data on search terms). Knowledge on the effects of "safe spaces" appears to be still entirely in the hypothetical stage.
They're also discussing the effects of a clear misuse of the concept of a safe space, which is supposed to be an accessible public space, not a pervading totality - i.e., one would normally designate a particular reading room, auditorium, or other public forum instead of declaring an entire college campus a "safe space." Ironically, the concept seems to have originated in the feminist movement in the 70's as a space where people disrupting discussion - in the same format as the professor from the first link, but on the opposite rhetorical side - would be removed from the forum.
Okay, analogy time. The world isn't a clean place. Basically everything you touch has SOMETHING on it that may infect and, if you're weak, kill you. If you spend all your time in a "clean bubble" and avoid pathogens entirely, you'll lose your ability to fight them, something will eventually breach the bubble, and you'll die, because your immune system doesn't know what to do. However, I very much doubt you'd say people should never wash their hands or have a sterile dressing applied to a wound, despite the fact that the world doesn't and will never work in a sterile fashion. Arguing against safe spaces for harassment victims is like arguing against Neosporin and Band-Aids (or, in more severe cases, a serious wound dressing).
Well, depends on what the words are. If it was, say, "I hate your shirt" then that's fine. However, if it was "Kill yourself, faggot", I'd like a safe place to cool off (before I commit homicide) too.
are you really comparing atrocities of the second world war to people who are offended over things?
sorry but are you- how do i put this - are you really that obnoxiously stupid?
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
Actually, Bass, while I disagreed with you above, I think I'm starting to understand your point; and, furthermore, am agreeing with you. We are growing too soft nowadays. It's not just teenagers. Hell, I think the adults get more offended about certain things than the adolescents. While the kids are the ones running home and whining to their parents about shit happening at school, it's the parents who in turn go and complain to the school board and go as far to protest something, such as whistles.
you're saying we're growing too soft nowadays because we'd probably think twice before sending off thousands of teenagers to slaughter and then i'm the obnoxious idiot one?
okay then. let's do it your way, become less soft. maybe start killing the weak and the elderly and the babies that don't look too healthy. -.-
OK, so, I'm not sure if you're clear on the concept of freedom of speech? It mostly just means that the government can't detain or punish you for saying something in a public space, and that means *public* space - sidewalks, parks, etc. It doesn't say anything about the owner of a private space being obligated to deal with whatever is spouted on their property. There's also a history of regulation of what's considered incendiary speech - much more strictly scrutinized that content-neutral regulations (which tend to be more along the lines of "the city doesn't care what you're saying, you just can't shout it from a soapbox near a residential area at 3 AM", "you must register ahead of time if you would like to have a 150,000 person parade on main street," etc.) but extant - for obvious reasons. Normally, when we have somebody shouting "all (x) people should be beaten" in a public space, we remove them because other rights (like (x) set of people's bodily safety) are potentially at risk.
1944 children were drafted and forced into a horible war to fight for freedom or face charges of desertion. 2016 kids can be kids. Shitty kids but kids nonetheless and that problem includeds the parents.
Maybe you're a little too sensitive about manners.
Also, I'm going to have to strongly disagree that the world has gone soft, as @bassinyoface has put it. The media in North America doesn't let you see what is really going on out here. Spend a few minutes on LiveLeak or BestGore.com and you will see just how hard the world really is. I'm sure that you meant Americans have gone soft, but I'm going to have to disagree there as well. Hundreds of millenials enlist in the armed forces every day. Three of my best friends are deployed to Turkey, Lebanon, and Afghanistan right now. The media hypes up and acts like a megaphone to the "typical lazy millennials" because it's the best news to report, and they speak the loudest. The warriors of this nation (America); are silent.
Honestly, at this juncture I'm guessing he just has to get it all out of his system between deployments.
BUT just because he has the balls to stand up and say something when somebody says or does something offensive doesn't necessarily make him soft.
Links, please, though, cause googling it just keeps leading to more think pieces and I'm not finding any actual studies.
They're also discussing the effects of a clear misuse of the concept of a safe space, which is supposed to be an accessible public space, not a pervading totality - i.e., one would normally designate a particular reading room, auditorium, or other public forum instead of declaring an entire college campus a "safe space." Ironically, the concept seems to have originated in the feminist movement in the 70's as a space where people disrupting discussion - in the same format as the professor from the first link, but on the opposite rhetorical side - would be removed from the forum.
sorry but are you- how do i put this - are you really that obnoxiously stupid?
okay then. let's do it your way, become less soft. maybe start killing the weak and the elderly and the babies that don't look too healthy. -.-