112 replies to this topic

[MozzarellaSticks]

Are you going to actually make a contribution or just throw out words at random?

I could ask you the same thing.

[Keil]

Take it to the PM's guys. 

 

Can't we all just be friends?

 

Don't ask for the impossible

[Frizzle]

I could ask you the same thing.

You could, but you'd be further reinforcing my point, ignoring my arguments and resulting to ad hominems as you cannot formulate a counter.

[DonValentino]

You do understand that by making ridiculous claims you yourself weaken your position? 

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, and maybe I even agree with it, but the way you're going about it is entirely wrong.

 

Trivializing rape by comparing it to listening to boybands is offensive, and not productive to making an argument.  

[MozzarellaSticks]

You could, but you'd be further reinforcing my point, ignoring my arguments and resulting to ad hominems as you cannot formulate a counter.

Your arguments are literally strawmen trying to derail from the actual topic. They have nothing to actually do with trigger warnings and I think you know that. If you can't differentiate between what is appropriate to say in mixed company and what isn't you need to go back to kindergarten, because that is a concept we teach children not grown, educated adults.

 

Back to OP, it seems to me like rape and sexual assault in general has become a plot device in a lot of shows and books, too. So it's tricky to avoid really. Same with child molestation. I know Supernatural had some, and that's a pretty popular show. So does True Blood and most soap operas.

[Frizzle]

A logical extreme is a useful, though often fallacious, rhetorical device for the disputation of propositions. Quite simply, a logical extreme is the relevant statement of an extreme or even preposterous position that is nonetheless consistent with the proposition in question. Thus, in so far as the logically extreme position is both relevant and untenable, it has succeeded in calling the proposition into question, at least in its stated form.

[DonValentino]

untenable means the view is not able to be defended against objection, which I don't think you meant to say. Also calling it fallacious probably isn't a good way to boost your argument either. 

 

What I got from what you just said is that a logical extreme is nonsense, albeit relevant nonsense. 

[MozzarellaSticks]

A logical extreme is a useful, though often fallacious, rhetorical device for the disputation of propositions. Quite simply, a logical extreme is the relevant statement of an extreme or even preposterous position that is nonetheless consistent with the proposition in question. Thus, in so far as the logically extreme position is both relevant and untenable, it has succeeded in calling the proposition into question, at least in its stated form.

Thank you for basically defining your fallacy. Makes it easier. But let's get back to the topic at hand.

Edited by noxiousmermaid, 20 October 2014 - 06:11 PM.

[Hawk]

Nobody is forcing you to watch anything! The power is always in the consumer's hands, you can always turn it off or stop watching when something "triggers" or upsets you.

This guy wins the thread, everyone else is arguing over stuff that doesn't matter.  Turn the damn TV, song, game, movie, whatever else off if it bothers you so damn much, or if it makes you relapse into an eating disorder, or return to abusing alcohol, heroin, or whatever your vice of choice may be.

 

That's pretty much it. No one is saying "no one should ever watch this ever," or anything like that. It's just good to have a warning if you're sensitive to certain things. I don't understand why people are making such a fuss over that.

Where do you draw the line on warnings?  There's already a bit before shows that says it's TV-MA.  You typically know damn well before a show where things are going to go.

 

My friend was raped when she was 18. A casual rape joke, depending on how her day has gone, can send her into hysterics.

 

You conveniently left out the "traumatic events" bit.

Anything can be traumatic.  Say I almost drowned when I was younger, I might go into hysterics if someone asked me if I'd like to go out on their boat, or go swimming.  In the same vein, I won't fucking watch "Deadliest Catch", "Whale Wars", or the movie "Open Water" because I'm not retarded.

 

Anything can be classified as a "traumatic event" which is why it's irrelevant and I left it out.

Exactly.

 

Stop pretending listening to a bad pop artist makes you feel as bad as a victim of rape feels. 

Who are you to the the judge and jury when it comes to what is traumatic to people, or what could be a trigger.  What if Lee was in a terrible automotive accident as a child while shitty pop was playing, and every time he heard shitty pop it brought him back to that accident?  Would that not be comparable?

[Frizzle]

Your arguments are literally strawmen trying to derail from the actual topic. They have nothing to actually do with trigger warnings and I think you know that. If you can't differentiate between what is appropriate to say in mixed company and what isn't you need to go back to kindergarten, because that is a concept we teach children not grown, educated adults.

I'm sorry if basic counter argument aspects are perplexing or completely alien to you. I'll have to simplify it to make it more understandable.

The concepts of censorship and the restrictions on civil liberties based on people's insecurties and sensitivities is a flawed logic at best. Due to the fact that there is an ambiguous and uncertain parameter around the definitions and legal/civil definitions of what constitutes a trigger/what doesn't, it seems to be a unnecessary curb on the arts, freedom of speech, comedy and on the general populace.

To summarise, the subjective nature of offensiveness and sensitivites means I've used an extreme example to highlight the point that vagueness and obscurity should never be used as a highlight in controlling what people can/cannot say.

What I got from what you just said is that a logical extreme is nonsense, albeit relevant nonsense.

Unfortunately you've misinterpreted the point and not fully understood the point at all.

[Swar]

Poor @Megazord, he just wanted to know what shows he should be careful to watch

[Frizzle]

Thank you for basically defining your fallacy. Makes it easier. But let's get back to the topic at hand.

Again, you haven't understood any point and now trying to ignore the point by claiming its off topic because you don't understand basic arguments.

[Frizzle]

Poor @Megazord, he just wanted to know what shows he should be careful to watch

How I met your mother. The series finale is traumatic.

[Swar]

Don't watch anything. TV is overrated!

 

Only listen to the radio. TV is too mainstream.

 

How I met your mother. The series finale is traumatic.

 

Don't do that do me I'm still recovering.

[Hawk]

Yee. Hipsters are the besttttttttt

Radio?  Yeah, I talk with people on my ham radio every now and then.

[DonValentino]

Who are you to the the judge and jury when it comes to what is traumatic to people, or what could be a trigger.  What if Lee was in a terrible automotive accident as a child while shitty pop was playing, and every time he heard shitty pop it brought him back to that accident?  Would that not be comparable?

 

It would be comparable (although I think if that happened the particular song would be a trigger, not a whole genre,. But that didn't happen. My point wasn't that a pop song can't be a trigger (in fact I know someone who has a song that triggers deep emotions), my point is that his assertion that his listening to boybands physically hurts him (because he doesn't like that type of music) is comparable to being a victim of rape. Using a "logical extreme" in this instance is distasteful, and not conducive to furthering his argument. 

[Shane]

Poor @Megazord, he just wanted to know what shows he should be careful to watch

 

Actually I made that post because I want to be more aware due to the people around me whom have troubles. @Swarley

[Turnip]

Actually I made that post because I want to be more aware due to the people around me whom have troubles. @Swarley

 

Didn't you know? People aren't allowed to be aware of the content which is in a piece of media before enjoying it. Someone else's comfort and safety deeply offends me, a person who complains about people who are too easily offended nowadays.

[Frizzle]

It would be comparable (although I think if that happened the particular song would be a trigger, not a whole genre,. But that didn't happen. My point wasn't that a pop song can't be a trigger (in fact I know someone who has a song that triggers deep emotions), my point is that his assertion that his listening to boybands physically hurts him (because he doesn't like that type of music) is comparable to being a victim of rape. Using a "logical extreme" in this instance is distasteful, and not conducive to furthering his argument.

Why can't pop songs be triggers? Is there an exhaustive list of what can and cannot be? You seem to have the assertion that people's personalities and mental health are only accessible to you.

Didn't you know? People aren't allowed to be aware of the content which is in a piece of media before enjoying it. Someone else's comfort and safety deeply offends me, a person who complains about people who are too easily offended nowadays.

You're right, there are absolutely not guidance, guidelines, warnings, ratings or any pre-accessible information on anything, ever.

[DonValentino]

Why can't pop songs be triggers? Is there an exhaustive list of what can and cannot be? You seem to have the assertion that people's personalities and mental health are only accessible to you.

 

It would be comparable (although I think if that happened the particular song would be a trigger, not a whole genre,. But that didn't happen. My point wasn't that a pop song can't be a trigger (in fact I know someone who has a song that triggers deep emotions), my point is that his assertion that his listening to boybands physically hurts him (because he doesn't like that type of music) is comparable to being a victim of rape. Using a "logical extreme" in this instance is distasteful, and not conducive to furthering his argument. 

 

 

Read please...

[Batori]

@Hawk If you'd bothered to read, you'd have seen that I was advocating for threads like this in the interest of self-information. I'm not sure where I stand on warnings before shows, but maybe a line in the TV Guide synopsis for general, common triggers might be nice? Not sure, I haven't thought much about it. I very much support discussion threads like this and sites intended to help accommodate people with triggers, though.

 

 

Actually I made that post because I want to be more aware due to the people around me whom have troubles. 

That's really cool of you. Sorry your thread got dogpiled.

[Frizzle]

Read please...

So someone else's trigger trumps mine? It's like you've completely ignored my point and just focused on the extremities instead...

[DonValentino]

Haha wow you are literally ignoring everything that I am saying. Let me break it down even more for you. I never said that a pop song can't be a trigger, in fact I said that in can. Also, who is focusing on extremities here? You're whole argument was based on a "logical extreme" lmao. Someone else's trigger trumps yours if yours is bullshit, which it is. The reason why I haven't been acknowledging your original attempted point is because when you say ridiculous things it takes away from your message, and I was trying to alert you to the damage you were doing to your argument, but you kept going in that same vein. If you're trolling, great job man, you got me.

[Frizzle]

Fine replace pop bands with loud noises, violence, dog attacks, shouting, swearing, drug usage, food, bullying, harassment whatever.

Ignore the fact that you've literally misunderstood the point completely, but focus on the fact that

"That sounds silly friz, stop being silly" and use that as an excuse to completely ignore the past few paragraphs and so forth.

[DonValentino]

I haven't misunderstood your point. I was never arguing your view on triggers, I was arguing that the way you were going about trying to prove your point was counter productive. Not sure what about that took you so long to grasp.