I'm really offended by that!

[HiGirlsRHot]

I am sorry I could only thank Veronica post once..

Year ago I attended a debate between the woman president of the ACLU, and Kenneth Star. Mr. Star is most famous for investigating Bill Clinton, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Being on opposite sides of the political aisle, they disagree on a fair amount. The one area where they completely agreed was on this. "There is a constitutional right is the country to be offensive, there is no right to be not offended." So contrary to popular internet opinion, this is not case where we have to balance the rights of one group vs other. The speaker has virtually unbound freedom to say whatever the hell they want, and the offended person has no recourse for having their feeling hurt.

While the free speech only applies to governments (at all levels) the same principals of speech that courts have been defending with such eloquence for 225+ years, should also apply to social media and other such venues. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said it very well

if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Or more simply the solution to offensive speech is more speech not less.

That is not what is happening today. The moment that somebody say "I'm offended", unless the person who made the allegedly offensive comments immediately apologies to everybody and their dog, the person is hounded (sometimes even get death threats, one form of free speech that is not protected) and attacked. This happens a lot in on social media and sometimes even on ACF .

Twitter is an awful medium for discussion of most anything, and I understand that lots of people don't want to read the drama. But in this age play drama, there was some learning that took place. For example one camgirl learned that not all men who suffer from pedophilia are criminals. Not something that would have happened if everybody just shutdown the conversation cause it was an offensive subject to many.

What I find particularly maddening is when people say they are offended on behalf of another group. White folks don't get to say they are offended by a racist comments, unless it is something like "white men can't jump, and white girls can't twerk". Actually, I guess it is free country they can be offended, but I really could give a flying fuck that you are. I find it arrogant in the extreme that your college course, on Native Americans, gender studies, or whatever makes you an expert whats offensive to a group. If you thinks it is racist or whatever fine, speak your mind, but spare me the I'm offended.

In many ways I think the Millennial are the finest generation this country/world has ever produced. Color blind, very accepting of differences, hard working, law abiding, and in many case quite altruistic. But in this generations, well meaning, determination to protect everyone's feeling from being hurt has resulted in lots of oppressed speech. I find this truly scary.

Being offended is a choice, you can choose to not be offended just as easily as being offended.

Most importantly in my 50 odd years the one thing I've learned. OFFENSIVE PEOPLE ARE ABOUT THE ONLY ONLY PEOPLE WHO GET IMPORTANT SHIT DONE. Argue with them, challenge them, remind them when they are being assholes, but don't try and shut them up.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

on the topic of trigger warnings: i don't have a problem putting warnings on stuff. it takes 2 seconds. why do people get so upset about something that takes almost no time and makes other people feel safer? i mean, you don't have to put warnings on everything if you don't want to, but i also don't see the point in getting mad that some people do.
i don't think they necessarily need to be just for ptsd, either. for example, i used to cut myself. i usually don't even think about cutting anymore, but when i see a picture of a bleeding cut, or people talking about harming themselves, i start to think about it again. i don't expect everyone to put trigger warnings on shit for me, but they also need to be okay with the fact that if they don't, i'm probably going to unfollow/mute/whatever. my safety comes first.
and who cares if people are muting stuff because it makes them uncomfortable? this is the internet. we can pick and choose what we want to see. that's what's so cool about the internet. it's not real life.

My issue with it runs a bit deeper than "I want to be able to say whatever I want", although it is really important to me that people do feel free to speak their mind. I'll try my best to explain.

I have triggers and trauma and what-not, and I really think that by allowing yourself to forever be the victim is an active choice. I feel like never being able to be exposed to things is believing yourself to be victimized, and not really giving yourself enough credit in your coping mechanisms. (I'm not talking about you specifically here, btw. just a general "you".) My worry is that if people become so sensitive that they can go through life, or at least are given the false idea that they can, without ever having to confront their issues ever again, they won't be able to truly heal from their trauma. I'm not saying that people should ACTIVELY be exposed to things that upset them, just that if we're too sensitive we're going to believe we're weaker than we actually are.

I really believe most people are much stronger than they think they are, and they're afraid of being exposed to things because they are afraid they DON'T have the strength.

I guess I just feel like people are consciously sheltering themselves because they don't think they have inner strength that they do.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

on the topic of trigger warnings: i don't have a problem putting warnings on stuff. it takes 2 seconds. why do people get so upset about something that takes almost no time and makes other people feel safer? i mean, you don't have to put warnings on everything if you don't want to, but i also don't see the point in getting mad that some people do.
i don't think they necessarily need to be just for ptsd, either. for example, i used to cut myself. i usually don't even think about cutting anymore, but when i see a picture of a bleeding cut, or people talking about harming themselves, i start to think about it again. i don't expect everyone to put trigger warnings on shit for me, but they also need to be okay with the fact that if they don't, i'm probably going to unfollow/mute/whatever. my safety comes first.
and who cares if people are muting stuff because it makes them uncomfortable? this is the internet. we can pick and choose what we want to see. that's what's so cool about the internet. it's not real life.

My issue with it runs a bit deeper than "I want to be able to say whatever I want", although it is really important to me that people do feel free to speak their mind. I'll try my best to explain.

I have triggers and trauma and what-not, and I really think that by allowing yourself to forever be the victim is an active choice. I feel like never being able to be exposed to things is believing yourself to be victimized, and not really giving yourself enough credit in your coping mechanisms. (I'm not talking about you specifically here, btw. just a general "you".) My worry is that if people become so sensitive that they can go through life, or at least are given the false idea that they can, without ever having to confront their issues ever again, they won't be able to truly heal from their trauma. I'm not saying that people should ACTIVELY be exposed to things that upset them, just that if we're too sensitive we're going to believe we're weaker than we actually are.

I really believe most people are much stronger than they think they are, and they're afraid of being exposed to things because they are afraid they DON'T have the strength.

I guess I just feel like people are consciously sheltering themselves because they don't think they have inner strength that they do.

A good example of this is returning veterans suffering from PTSD. A common trigger is loud noises, or anything that sounds like an explosion or gun shot. The treatment for the vet is not to have them move to Alaska or Wyoming wilderness or to have them wear noise canceling headsets 24x7 their entire lives. But rather to gradually introduce them to loud noise and most importantly teach them coping mechanism for dealing with them.

I'm not a shrink I don't even want to play one on the internet but I have to question is there any research that shows that uses of trigger warnings actually helps people over a 5 year or 10 year periods?, or are we just interfering in the healing process.

 

[Fay_Galore]

A good example of this is returning veterans suffering from PTSD. A common trigger is loud noises, or anything that sounds like an explosion or gun shot. The treatment for the vet is not to have them move to Alaska or Wyoming wilderness or to have them wear noise canceling headsets 24x7 their entire lives. But rather to gradually introduce them to loud noise and most importantly teach them coping mechanism for dealing with them.

I'm not a shrink I don't even want to play one on the internet but I have to question is there any research that shows that uses of trigger warnings actually helps people over a 5 year or 10 year periods?, or are we just interfering in the healing process.

Having dealt with a lot of anxiety issues myself, I know of this 'exposure therapy' you're talking about, but the thing is for that to be successful instead of ever more traumatising, is to build it up, take it one step at a time. If you throw them in the deep end, it will only traumatise them more. so I think trigger warnings are a sane way to let people deal with their issues at a pace that's more effective for them. Who are we to judge when a person is ready to be confronted with their trauma's 'because exposure is good for the healing process'. it is, but not on your pace but on their own.

having said that, you can't tip-toe around everything and everyone, I have a weird anxiety/trauma that most people won't know about is a 'thing' for a lot of people and definitely won't put in a spoiler and thus I'm confronted with it every day. But you can sort of see a topic coming while reading a post, and you're still free to decide to keep reading/watching/listening or move on.

 

[Teagan]

edit because you added to your post since i always take like 50 years to put my thoughts into words :lol: : "normal" is offensive in the same way that it would be with any other oppressed group. like, "gay, bisexual, normal." "black, asian, latino, normal." i don't think it has anything to do with trans people being easily offended, it's just newer than lgbtqa rights/civil rights/whatever.

Youre never gonna please everyone. You simply cant. Someone somewhere is gonna act offended and try to say something to you and they may just be being an ass or generally are stupid and dont even know what theyre talking about or some are ignorant (that to me is by choice as this day in age you can google and learn.)

Anyone care to explain the q and a in LGBTQA April just posted. Is this now the correct thing to say? I have never heard this before. I did hear of people wanting to add an I and some wanting to add an H though. I have only ever heard LGBT my entire life readily used. Touching on the someone will always be offended there are people who seriously wanna take the B (bisexual) out of this cause they dont feel it is even a real thing. And this is coming from the other "branches" of the LGBT people for the most part. You would think they would be the most accepting of someone elses feelings or confusion or personal likes but even then you get people who are hateful towards others.

Ive had black friends get offended when someone says african american. They say to call them black as they are not from africa they were born here. On the other side ive been told to say african american than just calling them by the color of their skin is racist to them. I also had 2 friends try to tell me on several occasions to call them the n word and not saying it was racist as theyre reclaiming it and i wasnt supporting that movement and thus being racist by not using it in our every day convos by saying what up my n***** and stuff like that. Trying to explain to them i didnt feel comfy saying such just got met with being called truly unerlyingly a racist. (Needless to say they are not my friend anymore as it was clear while asking me to respect their feelings they were not respecting mine. )

But that just goes to show that some people no matter what you say will get offended. As every person while being the same race even has personal preferences of what they identify and like being called. If they tell me what they prefer to be said to them I will respect that in my own personal comfort level (Ex i will not call someone the n word ever) but if they actually get offended and rude before that point then thats on them and not me. I didnt know your personal preference and that truly should be taken into account when discussing things. That's where i think a lot of people get lost or mad at others. Rather than hearing being called she and saying "hey i prefer to be called he" someone gets an attitude first and cries offended and hurt. They dont even offer a chance to correct what they identify with and someone to oblige them. The knee jerk reaction to get an attitude and act out comes first a lot of times. Now if you tell someone you prefer to be called a she and they continually say he instead then yes tell them that's offensive but give someone a chance.

 

[Sansa]

Being "PC" seems more about having manners than anything else.

Yea if someone is ostentatiously offensive, using all the racial slurs they want, putting their feet up on the table at restaurants, parking in handicapped spaces if they're not handicapped themselves, calling someone a "retard," acting like their way is the only way, it just makes them a boor.

But most of it seems like a grey area in there though for well meaning people that either haven't been educated, not for a lack of formal education mind you, or don't have the experiences that would make them understand what is correct.

I personally did not know anyone who was trans until about five or six years ago maybe? I'd heard of other people certainly, usually silly stories about someone's uncle who wanted to be a woman instead all of a sudden, wears makeup and dresses now, has breasts, and everyone is still a big happy family. But before that, never closely or personally. My eyes were really opened to the dark side of this culture and the negativity that they had to put up with once I did know a guy who had been born in a female body. However, even with knowing that guy closely, I'd never heard the term "cisgendered" until this year when I became acquainted with a woman who is very vocal about rights for transgendered persons on Facebook. I brought it up to some other friends, all of whom are very accepting individuals, and they'd never heard the term either. It was a learning experience for all of us.

Aside from the first example of anti-PC, it seems like the second type gets frustrated because they didn't mean to be hurtful, they'd be happy to adapt to the proper lingo, but they have hateful words thrown their way because they just didn't know, because that information really is not common knowledge yet. There are topics that they might want to understand better, but they're attacked with words like "privileged" and "ignorant." Maybe they're even told by a stranger from the internet that they should go kill themselves because of said ignorance. From their perspective, they're being insulted by someone random, and that widens the gap between the two groups because instead of seeing "hey look, I am a person too, please treat me like this," they see someone being irrational and crazy. They feel like they didn't do anything wrong because they didn't intend to do anything wrong. And they the whole reason why they are confused is because they DO want to get it right and just don't know how, and the person who maybe could have explained it just told them to snuff it. And how were they supposed to know something is deviates from common knowledge or their experiences with people growing up?

On one hand I would like to say that it shouldn't have to be the responsibility of every person of colour, every woman, etc to explain why racism, sexism, etc is wrong. But as a woman, I do have to deal with these things to an extent, maybe not as badly as others, but it's something that everyone of every group needs to work towards until it's fixed. As the old Arthurian adage goes, "a gentle hand will rule the land." This means that calmness and rationalization will go a lot further than angrily bursting out at every person, many of whom honestly would want to understand. Sometimes it's difficult. I shouldn't have to explain why rape jokes aren't okay, or why it's a problem that media industries are dominated by men, or why catcalling isn't okay, or why the wage gap is a problem, and so on and so on. All of these things make me really upset or furious, and it is really hard to not lash out with, "How could you be so stupid to NOT realize that all of this happens." But really, that's just going to piss someone off. And as difficult as it may be to calmly explain why these things bother us, one by one I think a difference will be made.

 

[AmberCutie]

Anyone care to explain the q and a in LGBTQA April just posted. Is this now the correct thing to say?

Q = Queer and A = Asexual? Not sure, but that's my guess, I'm sure someone will post soon with the correct answer.

About trigger warnings:

i don't expect everyone to put trigger warnings on shit for me, but they also need to be okay with the fact that if they don't, i'm probably going to unfollow/mute/whatever. my safety comes first.
and who cares if people are muting stuff because it makes them uncomfortable? this is the internet. we can pick and choose what we want to see. that's what's so cool about the internet. it's not real life.

I don't think anyone is upset that people unfollow/mute/ignore people who post or say things that have a negative effect on them. Are people upset by that? I feel like this is a totally justified thing, especially since I believe that the burden of avoiding/dealing with panic attacks lies on the person with the trigger, not everyone around them. I mainly feel this way because outside of very obvious things that would be upsetting to ANYBODY (not just people with PTSD) it's impossible to identify the other things that would trigger someone. The obvious things that aren't "triggers" necessarily but are probably deemed by general society as "gross or unsettling" would be gore, blood, seeing someone get killed, feces and possibly other bodily functions deemed appropriate only for a bathroom.

 

[Teagan]

Anyone care to explain the q and a in LGBTQA April just posted. Is this now the correct thing to say?

Q = Queer and A = Asexual? Not sure, but that's my guess, I'm sure someone will post soon with the correct answer.

Thank you. I had to look it up cause to me and what i was always taught was queer was the same thing as gay or lesbian but was an offensive and derogatory way of saying it. Apparently it stands for queer/queer and questioning/ or questioning depending on who you ask.

Can we just say GSD (gender and sexual diversity) to include everything or is that offensive to someone somehow too? I didnt make that up just fyi for someone who doesnt know that term but ive seen it proposed before and it seems to me it includes everyone nicely and to be frank were getting to the point where im gonna have to remember a very confusing new alphabet order to be PC here.

 

[Red7227]

Can we just say GSD (gender and sexual diversity) to include everything or is that offensive to someone somehow too? I didnt make that up just fyi for someone who doesnt know that term but ive seen it proposed before and it seems to me it includes everyone nicely and to be frank were getting to the point where im gonna have to remember a very confusing new alphabet order to be PC here.

Nah, that would never work, its the need of posers with no idea sticking everything in the correctly labeled boxes. Individuals struggling with having their chosen identity recognised and accepted only need a smile and the use of their name. Its one of the nice things about Australian society that I have been meeting and working with Gay and Transgender people for the last 40 years without anyone ever taking issue with their choices in public.

 

[AprilKitt]

i think it's important to not judge people's triggers. maybe some people are triggered by periods, or like, idk, cups of tea or dogs or w/e random shit. it would be silly for them to expect that everyone just knows their trigger when it's unusual, but we don't get to decide which triggers are valid or invalid.
i still feel that the use of trigger warnings doesn't necessarily just need to be for ptsd. it can be used for addictions (seeing drugs/self harm/whatever might trigger cravings), trans ppl (seeing certain stuff might trigger dysphoria), phobias, etc. i don't see the harm in that. i guess maybe we could use a different word than trigger since it's not ptsd, but i feel like that just leads back into the conversation we've been having about why we need to change what words we use so often (i hope that makes sense). i don't have ptsd, though, so maybe it's not my call?

do you guys have a problem w/ people asking politely for trigger warnings? i do that as a last resort before i unfollow/ignore sometimes, if i really like the person. is it always annoying or okay as long as they're not rude?

Anyone care to explain the q and a in LGBTQA April just posted. Is this now the correct thing to say?

Q = Queer and A = Asexual? Not sure, but that's my guess, I'm sure someone will post soon with the correct answer.

Thank you. I had to look it up cause to me and what i was always taught was queer was the same thing as gay or lesbian but was an offensive and derogatory way of saying it. Apparently it stands for queer/queer and questioning/ or questioning depending on who you ask.

Can we just say GSD (gender and sexual diversity) to include everything or is that offensive to someone somehow too? I didnt make that up just fyi for someone who doesnt know that term but ive seen it proposed before and it seems to me it includes everyone nicely and to be frank were getting to the point where im gonna have to remember a very confusing new alphabet order to be PC here.

yeah amber's correct with the q and the a!
my understanding is that gsd/gsm is incorrect b/c it was originally meant to include all sexual minorities, like people with fetishes, etc. correct me if things have changed here, i haven't heard anything about that for a while.
i'm not a big fan of lgbtqafjkfsbdfhjds either honestly. i used to just say "queer & trans", but i guess a lot of the older generation of lgb people still see queer as a slur. (for those confused, queer has been reclaimed by the lgbtqa community to just mean like... "people who aren't straight" basically, and as its own identity. it's rarely used as a slur anymore.) i do wish there was a more simple way to say it because i always feel like i forgot a letter lol.

and to your other post: you're right about there sometimes not being a consensus among groups, and that definitely gets confusing. there's not much to do about that.
this isn't really directly related to your posts, but i feel like it needs to be said... a lot of the stuff that people might correct you for saying isn't necessarily offensive, but simply incorrect or outdated. there's usually a good explanation behind it. a lot of the time you never hear the explanation b/c people get automatically hurt and angry and have a hard time explaining (keep in mind that they might have tried calmly explaining it a lots of times before only to get brushed off), but it's usually not people making stuff up for shits and giggles.

My issue with it runs a bit deeper than "I want to be able to say whatever I want", although it is really important to me that people do feel free to speak their mind. I'll try my best to explain.

I have triggers and trauma and what-not, and I really think that by allowing yourself to forever be the victim is an active choice. I feel like never being able to be exposed to things is believing yourself to be victimized, and not really giving yourself enough credit in your coping mechanisms. (I'm not talking about you specifically here, btw. just a general "you".) My worry is that if people become so sensitive that they can go through life, or at least are given the false idea that they can, without ever having to confront their issues ever again, they won't be able to truly heal from their trauma. I'm not saying that people should ACTIVELY be exposed to things that upset them, just that if we're too sensitive we're going to believe we're weaker than we actually are.

I really believe most people are much stronger than they think they are, and they're afraid of being exposed to things because they are afraid they DON'T have the strength.

I guess I just feel like people are consciously sheltering themselves because they don't think they have inner strength that they do.

i get where you're coming from! i agree that a lot of the time people are more strong than they think they are. for me personally, avoiding my triggers isn't a matter of not having the strength. i can usually get through it fine. it's just that there's still that initial feeling, and it takes time to work through it. i don't always want to deal with that stuff when i'm trying to relax, you know? what fay said about exposure therapy is spot on.

I don't think anyone is upset that people unfollow/mute/ignore people who post or say things that have a negative effect on them. Are people upset by that? I feel like this is a totally justified thing, especially since I believe that the burden of avoiding/dealing with panic attacks lies on the person with the trigger, not everyone around them. I mainly feel this way because outside of very obvious things that would be upsetting to ANYBODY (not just people with PTSD) it's impossible to identify the other things that would trigger someone. The obvious things that aren't "triggers" necessarily but are probably deemed by general society as "gross or unsettling" would be gore, blood, seeing someone get killed, feces and possibly other bodily functions deemed appropriate only for a bathroom.

i agree with you on the bolded. i have definitely seen people get upset for being unfollowed when they kept posting triggering stuff, though. i mean, when someone you like unfollows you and you don't know why, it's really easy to take it personal, so people are bound to get their feelings hurt about it.

 

[Teagan]

i think it's important to not judge people's triggers. maybe some people are triggered by periods, or like, idk, cups of tea or dogs or w/e random shit. it would be silly for them to expect that everyone just knows their trigger when it's unusual, but we don't get to decide which triggers are valid or invalid.

Agreed. I remember in the 90s when Montel or some other talk show host would have guests on with unusual fears. Things like toilet paper or kittens even. (My gosh this forum would freak them the hell out.) Anything that bothers you by seeing it is valid to you, but you should not expect trigger warnings all the time especially on the interweb.

yeah amber's correct with the q and the a!
my understanding is that gsd/gsm is incorrect b/c it was originally meant to include all sexual minorities, like people with fetishes, etc. correct me if things have changed here, i haven't heard anything about that for a while.
i'm not a big fan of lgbtqafjkfsbdfhjds either honestly. i used to just say "queer & trans", but i guess a lot of the older generation of lgb people still see queer as a slur. (for those confused, queer has been reclaimed by the lgbtqa community to just mean like... "people who aren't straight" basically, and as its own identity. it's rarely used as a slur anymore.) i do wish there was a more simple way to say it because i always feel like i forgot a letter lol.

See that's where i dont get why it's incorrect or why queer is included now. If GSD includes anyone even with fetishes then it should be used as everyone is included. No initials included or not included thus no one feels left out or singled out ever. And once you include everyone you are gonna end up with an alphabet at the end of the day. Am i wrong on that or not seeing something?
As to queer being used i dont get why if G and L is there why you even need queer since it's already covered? (Not singling anyone out here but a general question for anyone to answer.) I get if it's for the people who are questioning being included though. But then GSD would cover them as well already. And if some still see it as a slur and some people do still use it as one then just leave it out cause it's already covered. It's like trying to add an F for fag (please excuse me as i never use that word but just trying to make my point. Its a disgusting word with a terrible origin I know) cause some people wanna reclaim it. Its already in there so no need for an F or Q for queer or D for dyke. It doesnt make sense and just touches on the fact some people prefer one thing when some prefer another so having it be initials at all instead of a word or phrase is confusing and someone gets hurt or offended. If it's meaning queer in the sense of not to be one specific sex attracted to the same specific sense (for instance an intersex person attracted to intersex person, trans attracted to trans vs man to man only or woman to woman only) then fine but you take out the G and L and add a Q (or something else to cover the meaning but itsnt old and offensive) only and then boom everyone included.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

A good example of this is returning veterans suffering from PTSD. A common trigger is loud noises, or anything that sounds like an explosion or gun shot. The treatment for the vet is not to have them move to Alaska or Wyoming wilderness or to have them wear noise canceling headsets 24x7 their entire lives. But rather to gradually introduce them to loud noise and most importantly teach them coping mechanism for dealing with them.

I'm not a shrink I don't even want to play one on the internet but I have to question is there any research that shows that uses of trigger warnings actually helps people over a 5 year or 10 year periods?, or are we just interfering in the healing process.

Having dealt with a lot of anxiety issues myself, I know of this 'exposure therapy' you're talking about, but the thing is for that to be successful instead of ever more traumatising, is to build it up, take it one step at a time. If you throw them in the deep end, it will only traumatise them more. so I think trigger warnings are a sane way to let people deal with their issues at a pace that's more effective for them. Who are we to judge when a person is ready to be confronted with their trauma's 'because exposure is good for the healing process'. it is, but not on your pace but on their own.

having said that, you can't tip-toe around everything and everyone, I have a weird anxiety/trauma that most people won't know about is a 'thing' for a lot of people and definitely won't put in a spoiler and thus I'm confronted with it every day. But you can sort of see a topic coming while reading a post, and you're still free to decide to keep reading/watching/listening or move on.

I think my question is a bit on the history of trigger warning which seems to have spread from college campus to the internet in a last few years. Perhaps trigger warnings was a recommendation from The American Board of Psychiatry or similar organization, IDK but a quick google search suggests that this isn't the case.

I'm certainly not in a position to judge what is effective treatment or not, but most people suffering from some sort of mental illness or neuroses are particularly bad at figuring out what is good for them in the long run. Anybody who gone through any type physical therapy knows that it a painful and feels awful, but doctors and physical therapist have done lots of research to prove that people who are diligent about doing their PT heal faster, and over the long term are better off than those who don't do it. Now perhaps dealing with anxieties and trauma is the opposite, IDK.

The few articles about trigger warning suggest they do more harm than good, but they were written by lay people, and don't rise much above a forum discussion. Psychiatric science is not the most reliable science out there but it is better than guessing, which is what we are doing now.

When I was in my early 20s I use to regular pass by homeless people, I occasionally would give them a few bucks. Sure I knew that sometimes it might go to booze or drugs, but they were happy, and I felt good for being altruistic (sort of liking tip camgirls ). I then read a study that I was fact doing more harm than good by enabling their addiction. The best thing I could do was give the money to aid organization like the Salvation Army, the second best thing was just to acknowledge them and walk past and the worst was to give them money.

I'm happy to include trigger warning if they actually help people. However, the burden of proof of should be on the people requesting trigger warning that they are actually helping. Cause I sure would hate to do the giving money to winos thing again,

 

[AprilKitt]

See that's where i dont get why it's incorrect or why queer is included now. If GSD includes anyone even with fetishes then it should be used as everyone is included. No initials included or not included thus no one feels left out or singled out ever. And once you include everyone you are gonna end up with an alphabet at the end of the day. Am i wrong on that or not seeing something?
As to queer being used i dont get why if G and L is there why you even need queer since it's already covered? (Not singling anyone out here but a general question for anyone to answer.) I get if it's for the people who are questioning being included though. But then GSD would cover them as well already. And if some still see it as a slur and some people do still use it as one then just leave it out cause it's already covered. It's like trying to add an F for fag (please excuse me as i never use that word but just trying to make my point. Its a disgusting word with a terrible origin I know) cause some people wanna reclaim it. Its already in there so no need for an F or Q for queer or D for dyke. It doesnt make sense and just touches on the fact some people prefer one thing when some prefer another so having it be initials at all instead of a word or phrase is confusing and someone gets hurt or offended. If it's meaning queer in the sense of not to be one specific sex attracted to the same specific sense (for instance an intersex person attracted to intersex person, trans attracted to trans vs man to man only or woman to woman only) then fine but you take out the G and L and add a Q (or something else to cover the meaning but itsnt old and offensive) only and then boom everyone included.

well, straight cis people with fetishes aren't part of the lgbtqa community, so that's why it'd be wrong. we could have a whole debate about that too but to put it simply: ppl with fetishes aren't oppressed for having fetishes. they might get some flak for their kinks, but that =/= oppression. i say this as someone who is both queer/trans and has weird kinks.
i don't think i explained queer well enough! people do use it as an umbrella term, but it's also its own identity. some people identify as queer rather than lesbian or gay or bi, instead of in addition to it. it usually signifies like, more radical politics, or even just feeling like the words lesbian/gay/bi/pan aren't right for you. so that's why it's included. i've never seen anyone get offended at people identifying as queer, just at people using it as an umbrella term, since not everyone wants to be called that.
and the q is supposed to be for both queer and questioning, i think.

 

[SaffronBurke]

i think it's important to not judge people's triggers. maybe some people are triggered by periods, or like, idk, cups of tea or dogs or w/e random shit. it would be silly for them to expect that everyone just knows their trigger when it's unusual, but we don't get to decide which triggers are valid or invalid.
i still feel that the use of trigger warnings doesn't necessarily just need to be for ptsd. it can be used for addictions (seeing drugs/self harm/whatever might trigger cravings), trans ppl (seeing certain stuff might trigger dysphoria), phobias, etc. i don't see the harm in that. i guess maybe we could use a different word than trigger since it's not ptsd, but i feel like that just leads back into the conversation we've been having about why we need to change what words we use so often (i hope that makes sense). i don't have ptsd, though, so maybe it's not my call?

do you guys have a problem w/ people asking politely for trigger warnings? i do that as a last resort before i unfollow/ignore sometimes, if i really like the person. is it always annoying or okay as long as they're not rude?

I feel like there's nothing wrong with politely asking for a trigger warning. I'm bad at using them, even on things that are my own triggers, because I completely forget that that's a thing that people do until I see it mentioned. I was taught as a child to just fucking deal with my own problems and not expect help from anyone with them, so I'm in the habit of just scrolling quickly/turning my head/leaving the room if something bothers me, rather than vocalizing that it makes me relive something unpleasant. I was also bullied a lot, so I'm in the habit of not letting people know what bothers me because that would give a bully another way to get under my skin.

There was definitely a point at the beginning of my healing process when I just could not handle being exposed to my triggers. I think we all go through that for a little bit, and then get to the point where we can handle a little exposure to it, and then a little more. For all of my adult life, I've been at a point where I can just nonchalantly discuss the events that caused my PTSD to exist in the same manner that most people talk about what they did yesterday. I still get triggered once in a blue moon, but it's rare enough for me that I don't feel like bringing it up is worth it.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone should have the attitude that I do right now. I hope that people with past abuse or other trigger-causing events in their past can heal to the point of being able to be around triggering situations and be fine, but that healing process is so varied that everyone takes a different amount of time to get to that point. Politely pointing out that saying/doing something really bothers you and asking someone to not do it or to include a warning is pretty acceptable among friends, family, etc. I've noticed that one friend said something that bothered another friend, explained why it's a hurtful thing to say, and they agreed to stop saying it, because friends should be respectful of each other. However, I feel like it may be a little entitled to ask that of strangers, but I think most people would unfollow/unfriend strangers rather than get into it with them, because it's pretty easy to just cut out a stranger on the internet from your life.

I've really only seen requests for trigger warnings done in a polite manner. I imagine that if it was demanded or the person threw a fit over it, the other party would probably get defensive and possibly refuse to do.

I feel like I'm not articulating my opinion well here. To sum up, and with a general "you" : It's important to take responsibility towards healing and getting to a place where your triggers don't bother you anymore. I'd you're at the beginning of that process, definitely let people who are close to you know what your triggers are so they can help by not mentioning them/including a trigger warning. But expecting every person everywhere to do it when it's pretty easy to remove yourself from the situation can be a little much.

 

[takuy]

it's really simple!
if you're cis, say "transgender woman/man/person" or "trans woman/man/person"

There's a little bit of a disconnect here. You say it's simple. In all my life, I hadn't heard the term "cis" until last year. Imagine my surprise when I found out I, myself, am "cis". It's not simple when the language keeps changing. Now I know what people are referring to when they say "cis" but I would never use the term to refer to myself.

new=/=complicated. transgender rights are just starting to get into the mainstream, so of course there are going to be some words that you haven't heard before, and trans related words & concepts are going to evolve a bit. there's nothing wrong with that. it's still pretty simple to learn which words to use and which to avoid.
what don't you like about being called cisgender? no negative connotation, just a descriptive word. opposite of transgender. that's like a straight person saying they wouldn't call themselves straight, or something. again, it being new to you doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. what else would you suggest to mean the opposite of trans? there isn't any other way to put it that's nearly as concise.

edit because you added to your post since i always take like 50 years to put my thoughts into words :lol: : "normal" is offensive in the same way that it would be with any other oppressed group. like, "gay, bisexual, normal." "black, asian, latino, normal." i don't think it has anything to do with trans people being easily offended, it's just newer than lgbtqa rights/civil rights/whatever.

I don't like being called cisgender because it's not what I identify as. I identify as male. That's it. Not cis. Not non-trans. Just male.
Terms like trans* or *gender are created for the purpose of giving an identity - when somebody doesn't want to be identified by another term. (to escape the gender binary, to escape being labeled by someone/something else, whatever)
The whole thing with gender theory is that gender is fluid, there's not just two/four/eight/two-hundred fifty-six. People identify what they want to identify as, what they feel that they are, what they feel the most comfortable as.

If it's proper to call someone who is born male but lives/identifies as a female a transgirl/transwoman, it should only be 'proper' because that's what that person wants to call themselves. (despite them not identifying as just a female/girl/woman for reasons unknown)

Either way - people are called by whatever term they use to identify themselves, usually. I'll call somebody whatever identity they want, use whatever name or pronouns they prefer.

I identify as male, just...male. that's my gender identity. I'd prefer if people would identify me how i want to be identified - and not just apply "cismale" to me.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

it's really simple!
if you're cis, say "transgender woman/man/person" or "trans woman/man/person"

There's a little bit of a disconnect here. You say it's simple. In all my life, I hadn't heard the term "cis" until last year. Imagine my surprise when I found out I, myself, am "cis". It's not simple when the language keeps changing. Now I know what people are referring to when they say "cis" but I would never use the term to refer to myself.

new=/=complicated. transgender rights are just starting to get into the mainstream, so of course there are going to be some words that you haven't heard before, and trans related words & concepts are going to evolve a bit. there's nothing wrong with that. it's still pretty simple to learn which words to use and which to avoid.
what don't you like about being called cisgender? no negative connotation, just a descriptive word. opposite of transgender. that's like a straight person saying they wouldn't call themselves straight, or something. again, it being new to you doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. what else would you suggest to mean the opposite of trans? there isn't any other way to put it that's nearly as concise.

edit because you added to your post since i always take like 50 years to put my thoughts into words :lol: : "normal" is offensive in the same way that it would be with any other oppressed group. like, "gay, bisexual, normal." "black, asian, latino, normal." i don't think it has anything to do with trans people being easily offended, it's just newer than lgbtqa rights/civil rights/whatever.

I don't like being called cisgender because it's not what I identify as. I identify as male. That's it. Not cis. Not non-trans. Just male.
Terms like trans* or *gender are created for the purpose of giving an identity - when somebody doesn't want to be identified by another term. (to escape the gender binary, to escape being labeled by someone/something else, whatever)
The whole thing with gender theory is that gender is fluid, there's not just two/four/eight/two-hundred fifty-six. People identify what they want to identify as, what they feel that they are, what they feel the most comfortable as.

If it's proper to call someone who is born male but lives/identifies as a female a transgirl/transwoman, it should only be 'proper' because that's what that person wants to call themselves. (despite them not identifying as just a female/girl/woman for reasons unknown)

Either way - people are called by whatever term they use to identify themselves, usually. I'll call somebody whatever identity they want, use whatever name or pronouns they prefer.

I identify as male, just...male. that's my gender identity. I'd prefer if people would identify me how i want to be identified - and not just apply "cismale" to me.

I think you make a really good point here. If trans-folk want to be called X, cis-folk (for lack of better term) should have the same courtesy.

Although, this discussion is a lot of my point. There are SO many names/terms these days for gender, I kind of can't help but role my eyes at the idea of someone getting offended by a well-meaning person using the wrong term. Like, maybe save that for people who actually are being poops about your gender identity?

I don't think there's anything wrong about politely explaining to someone what you'd prefer to be called, whether that's male, trans, cis, or whatever.

I think a lot of my issue is when people's FIRST assumption is that someone's against them due to their language usage. I don't think it's helping the trans-movement to be defensive.

 

[AprilKitt]

it's really simple!
if you're cis, say "transgender woman/man/person" or "trans woman/man/person"

There's a little bit of a disconnect here. You say it's simple. In all my life, I hadn't heard the term "cis" until last year. Imagine my surprise when I found out I, myself, am "cis". It's not simple when the language keeps changing. Now I know what people are referring to when they say "cis" but I would never use the term to refer to myself.

new=/=complicated. transgender rights are just starting to get into the mainstream, so of course there are going to be some words that you haven't heard before, and trans related words & concepts are going to evolve a bit. there's nothing wrong with that. it's still pretty simple to learn which words to use and which to avoid.
what don't you like about being called cisgender? no negative connotation, just a descriptive word. opposite of transgender. that's like a straight person saying they wouldn't call themselves straight, or something. again, it being new to you doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. what else would you suggest to mean the opposite of trans? there isn't any other way to put it that's nearly as concise.

edit because you added to your post since i always take like 50 years to put my thoughts into words :lol: : "normal" is offensive in the same way that it would be with any other oppressed group. like, "gay, bisexual, normal." "black, asian, latino, normal." i don't think it has anything to do with trans people being easily offended, it's just newer than lgbtqa rights/civil rights/whatever.

I don't like being called cisgender because it's not what I identify as. I identify as male. That's it. Not cis. Not non-trans. Just male.
Terms like trans* or *gender are created for the purpose of giving an identity - when somebody doesn't want to be identified by another term. (to escape the gender binary, to escape being labeled by someone/something else, whatever)
The whole thing with gender theory is that gender is fluid, there's not just two/four/eight/two-hundred fifty-six. People identify what they want to identify as, what they feel that they are, what they feel the most comfortable as.

If it's proper to call someone who is born male but lives/identifies as a female a transgirl/transwoman, it should only be 'proper' because that's what that person wants to call themselves. (despite them not identifying as just a female/girl/woman for reasons unknown)

Either way - people are called by whatever term they use to identify themselves, usually. I'll call somebody whatever identity they want, use whatever name or pronouns they prefer.

I identify as male, just...male. that's my gender identity. I'd prefer if people would identify me how i want to be identified - and not just apply "cismale" to me.

"being trans" isn't necessarily a part of someone's gender identity. cis/trans is separate from the gender itself, it just means either "was assigned as the gender they are at birth" or "was assigned a different gender at birth than the one they actually are". lots of trans people do just identify as women, men, or non-binary and don't often talk about being trans. again, "cis" just a descriptive term, like "white" or "straight" or whatever, and there isn't any other word for it that's as concise. this is also why i said earlier that saying "transwoman" "transman" all smushed together like that is incorrect (not to pick on you, it's just a good example lol). it implies that trans men/women are an entirely different gender than cis men/women, which makes for confusion.

it would be awesome if the terms cis and trans didn't need to exist and we could all just be whatever gender we are without putting those labels on it, but that's unfortunately not the way it is. nor will it ever be like that, most likely. cissexism is so intertwined in our society that we would literally need to rebuild all of our conceptions of everything from the ground up.

 

[AprilKitt]

I think you make a really good point here. If trans-folk want to be called X, cis-folk (for lack of better term) should have the same courtesy.

Although, this discussion is a lot of my point. There are SO many names/terms these days for gender, I kind of can't help but role my eyes at the idea of someone getting offended by a well-meaning person using the wrong term. Like, maybe save that for people who actually are being poops about your gender identity?

I don't think there's anything wrong about politely explaining to someone what you'd prefer to be called, whether that's male, trans, cis, or whatever.

I think a lot of my issue is when people's FIRST assumption is that someone's against them due to their language usage. I don't think it's helping the trans-movement to be defensive.

i agree that people should assume the best rather than jumping to get offended, but i don't like the idea that the oppressed should try to "win over" their oppressor. i know i'm repeating myself a lot here but please please keep in mind that pretty much every poc/lgbtqa/whatever person you've ever met has probably explained things to people a million times. they didn't choose to be everyone's teacher just by being born a certain color or gay or trans. it's important to have sympathy for this and understand their anger rather than just going like "PFFT, political correctness, social justice warriors, am i right?!" imo, that's the kind of stuff that isn't helping any movement - demanding that oppressed people educate you instead of blowing up, then rolling your eyes at them when they start to get upset about repeating themselves over and over (often about stuff that can be found through a simple google search).
(apologies for the double post)

 

[VeronicaChaos]

I think you make a really good point here. If trans-folk want to be called X, cis-folk (for lack of better term) should have the same courtesy.

Although, this discussion is a lot of my point. There are SO many names/terms these days for gender, I kind of can't help but role my eyes at the idea of someone getting offended by a well-meaning person using the wrong term. Like, maybe save that for people who actually are being poops about your gender identity?

I don't think there's anything wrong about politely explaining to someone what you'd prefer to be called, whether that's male, trans, cis, or whatever.

I think a lot of my issue is when people's FIRST assumption is that someone's against them due to their language usage. I don't think it's helping the trans-movement to be defensive.

i agree that people should assume the best rather than jumping to get offended, but i don't like the idea that the oppressed should try to "win over" their oppressor. i know i'm repeating myself a lot here but please please keep in mind that pretty much every poc/lgbtqa/whatever person you've ever met has probably explained things to people a million times. they didn't choose to be everyone's teacher just by being born a certain color or gay or trans. it's important to have sympathy for this and understand their anger rather than just going like "PFFT, political correctness, social justice warriors, am i right?!" imo, that's the kind of stuff that isn't helping any movement - demanding that oppressed people educate you instead of blowing up, then rolling your eyes at them when they start to get upset about repeating themselves over and over (often about stuff that can be found through a simple google search).
(apologies for the double post)

I disagree. I was vegetarian for 14 years and it's not like I really felt that I had chosen the lifestyle; it wasn't MY fault that I found meat to be morally reprehensible, it was just me being true to myself. And I had to explain every day what I could/couldn't eat. I never got upset by that, despite the fact that yes, somebody could just google "vegetarian". However, there are about a million different types of vegetarians, just as gender is fluid and means something different to everyone.

Or, people with food allergies. I have a family where everyone has a bazillion different allergies and it was hard to keep straight, so we ALL had to repeat ourselves over and over with what we could/could not eat. It's nobody's fault that certain people couldn't eat certain things, nor was it anybody's fault that we had to continually educate each other on it.

Yeah, sympathy is great and all, but I think everybody should be prepared to educate others on their lifestyle without getting upset by it, especially if you want people to be better educated.

Sure, it can be frustrating. Life's kind of frustrating sometimes.

Edit: in regards to "they didn't choose to be everyone's teacher just by being born a certain color or gay or trans." I think everybody in the world is a teacher of the things they know, just as everybody is a student to the things they don't.

 

[AprilKitt]

I think you make a really good point here. If trans-folk want to be called X, cis-folk (for lack of better term) should have the same courtesy.

Although, this discussion is a lot of my point. There are SO many names/terms these days for gender, I kind of can't help but role my eyes at the idea of someone getting offended by a well-meaning person using the wrong term. Like, maybe save that for people who actually are being poops about your gender identity?

I don't think there's anything wrong about politely explaining to someone what you'd prefer to be called, whether that's male, trans, cis, or whatever.

I think a lot of my issue is when people's FIRST assumption is that someone's against them due to their language usage. I don't think it's helping the trans-movement to be defensive.

i agree that people should assume the best rather than jumping to get offended, but i don't like the idea that the oppressed should try to "win over" their oppressor. i know i'm repeating myself a lot here but please please keep in mind that pretty much every poc/lgbtqa/whatever person you've ever met has probably explained things to people a million times. they didn't choose to be everyone's teacher just by being born a certain color or gay or trans. it's important to have sympathy for this and understand their anger rather than just going like "PFFT, political correctness, social justice warriors, am i right?!" imo, that's the kind of stuff that isn't helping any movement - demanding that oppressed people educate you instead of blowing up, then rolling your eyes at them when they start to get upset about repeating themselves over and over (often about stuff that can be found through a simple google search).
(apologies for the double post)

I disagree. I was vegetarian for 14 years and it's not like I really felt that I had chosen the lifestyle; it wasn't MY fault that I found meat to be morally reprehensible, it was just me being true to myself. And I had to explain every day what I could/couldn't eat. I never got upset by that, despite the fact that yes, somebody could just google "vegetarian". However, there are about a million different types of vegetarians, just as gender is fluid and means something different to everyone.

Or, people with food allergies. I have a family where everyone has a bazillion different allergies and it was hard to keep straight, so we ALL had to repeat ourselves over and over with what we could/could not eat. It's nobody's fault that certain people couldn't eat certain things, nor was it anybody's fault that we had to continually educate each other on it.

Yeah, sympathy is great and all, but I think everybody should be prepared to educate others on their lifestyle without getting upset by it, especially if you want people to be better educated.

Sure, it can be frustrating. Life's kind of frustrating sometimes.

Edit: in regards to "they didn't choose to be everyone's teacher just by being born a certain color or gay or trans." I think everybody in the world is a teacher of the things they know, just as everybody is a student to the things they don't.

the teacher/student thing is really cool, i never thought about it that way before! it's just a matter of the way individual people look at life, i guess. i agree that it's best to educate but i know that not everyone wants to do that, and that's okay - they just see things differently. i do think it's a bit different on the internet where it's usually easier to google than to ask people, but other than that i don't really have anything to add.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I think you make a really good point here. If trans-folk want to be called X, cis-folk (for lack of better term) should have the same courtesy.

Although, this discussion is a lot of my point. There are SO many names/terms these days for gender, I kind of can't help but role my eyes at the idea of someone getting offended by a well-meaning person using the wrong term. Like, maybe save that for people who actually are being poops about your gender identity?

I don't think there's anything wrong about politely explaining to someone what you'd prefer to be called, whether that's male, trans, cis, or whatever.

I think a lot of my issue is when people's FIRST assumption is that someone's against them due to their language usage. I don't think it's helping the trans-movement to be defensive.

I feel the same, partly because my standards for what offensive means are much different. Although I could care less if I'm called cis, straight male,or HiGirls.

On March 3, 2006, U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed in a non-combat-related vehicle accident in Iraq.[1][2] On March 10, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) picketed Snyder's funeral in Westminster, Maryland, as it had done at thousands of other funerals throughout the U.S. in protest of what they considered America's increasing tolerance of homosexuality. Picketers displayed placards such as "America is doomed", "You're going to hell", "God hates you", "Fag troops", "Semper fi fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers".[3]...
...
Albert Snyder [Father] described his emotional injuries, including becoming tearful, angry, and physically nauseated to the point that he would vomit. He stated that the Defendants had placed a "bug" in his head, so that he was unable to think of his son without thinking of their actions, adding, "I want so badly to remember all the good stuff and so far, I remember the good stuff, but it always turns into the bad".[8] Snyder called several expert witnesses who testified that worsening of his diabetes and severe depression had resulted from the Defendants' activities

The Supreme court ruled (8-1) that what the fucktards at Westoboro Bapist Church did was protected speech. It just seems to me there is no comparison between the offensiveness of WBC, and getting the wrong pronoun used for transgendered person, or a sexist tweet. Now I wouldn't wish what Albert Synder went through on my worse enemy, but he and his family did survive it.

As Veronica said in the OP.

Also, I think we're becoming a society of giant pussies who can't handle getting their feathers ruffled in the slightest bit. That's bullshit. We're goddamn human beings. We have the capacity for extreme intelligence, reasoning skills, and compassion. We're also adaptable as shit. We can and will handle anything.

 

[eclipse76]

and it's okay to ask someone's pronouns! usually the only reason someone would get offended when you ask for pronouns is b/c they're cis and "how DARE you think i might be trans" which is hella transphobic so fuck them :lol:

Most trans person goal is to pass, when you are asking them their pronouns, you are signalling that they don't really pass as man (for AFAB) or woman (for AMAB). So no it's not just cis person who get offended. (http://helpfultransinfo.tumblr.com/post/84915882680 , point 3)

Here are two really wonderful videos about gender by Laci Green that might be interesting to some in this thread.

Laci Green also said trans men shouldn't feel 'grossed out" by their period, without realising it's quite a devastating thing to say to people who experience sex dysphoria. I'd advise anyone to take anything she says about gender with a big pinch of salt.

I would probably use the term "normal", but that, I guess, is why people possibly started using the term "cis" in the first place and what makes this post relevant to the thread. I guess "normal" was deemed offensive.

Because when you mean "normal", you mean within the norm, i.e. 99.5% of people are cis. But what some people hear is that you think trans are abnormal, which is technically true, they are statistically outside the average, but these people understand the other meaning of "abnormal", i.e. the negative connotation, freak, etc.

what don't you like about being called cisgender? no negative connotation, just a descriptive word. opposite of transgender.

Some people are using it as a "slur" to silence discussion (cd. "die cis scum" all over Tumblr). Generally they have a in-group/out-group mindset: trans are oppressed, if you are not trans you are cis, therefore an oppressor. They perceive privilege is a one-dimensional thing, such that for any two people, one has privilege over the other (being cis), and that first person has it better in every single way, and that second person has it worse in every single way.

 

[eclipse76]

Also it reminds me this woman who claimed to have PTSD over Twitter arguments:

 

[eclipse76]

Anyone care to explain the q and a in LGBTQA April just posted. Is this now the correct thing to say?

Q = Queer and A = Asexual? Not sure, but that's my guess, I'm sure someone will post soon with the correct answer.

Thank you. I had to look it up cause to me and what i was always taught was queer was the same thing as gay or lesbian but was an offensive and derogatory way of saying it. Apparently it stands for queer/queer and questioning/ or questioning depending on who you ask.

Can we just say GSD (gender and sexual diversity) to include everything or is that offensive to someone somehow too? I didnt make that up just fyi for someone who doesnt know that term but ive seen it proposed before and it seems to me it includes everyone nicely and to be frank were getting to the point where im gonna have to remember a very confusing new alphabet order to be PC here.

Queer is supposedly "reclaimed" but not everyone agrees on that and it's still used as a slur in some part of the anglosphere (some British friends are subjected to it daily), thus get quite defensive when some activists use it.

Some people are spinning around the term "MOGAI" i.e. "Marginalized Orientations, Gender Alignments and Intersex", but it tends to be associated with special snowflakes who make up new genders or orientations on a daily basis (yeah it's a thing).

 

[SoTxBob]

Jesusfuck... you folks and all your acronym fever. You love to sort everything till all hairs are split and put people in their little color coded and catalogued boxes.
In my simple mind.. I dont care. I'm just a straight male..... I simply don't care about orientation or whatever else you want to hyper define. It's pretty silly to keep harping on it all. We are ALL human beings. Being adults you should know how to assemble the options to procreate, IF thats something you want. Where you get what you need makes zero difference.
All this is very close to religious arguments as well. Once again, IF you believe or how you believe doesn't make any difference. Be it Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam or whatever, its all good if its what you want. [That is until you start telling me I cant have my own spirituality and pull some ISIS crap trying to indoctrinate the folks into a singular way of thought.]
I have never been PC and most likely never will be. I use a novel system my grandmother taught me. It's called manners and common sense courtesy. The old "Do Unto Others" routine. I've got pretty thick skin and I say what I see, so if you are easily offended by whatever, sorry in advance but - mehhh, deal with it. :twocents-02cents:

where's my Advil......

 

[eclipse76]

Sadly not everyone shares your ideals as what happened a few hours ago in my country proves yet again. I'm expecting more intolerance in the years to come, not less.

 

[SoTxBob]

agreed, until the silent moderate and accepting folks decide to get involved, you're right.

 

[eyeteach]

Also it reminds me this woman who claimed to have PTSD over Twitter arguments:

I have no idea who this fucking bitch is but she can kiss my veteran, PTSD ass. If she's never been blown out of a fucking vehicle, lost a limb, and woke up from a medically induced coma 3 1/2 weeks later only to be told that two of her buddies died in the blast and a third threw a pulmonary embolism that took his life in the hospital then she needs to keep her damned mouth SHUT regarding veterans and the issues we face. Come walk a mile in my shoes, you cunt. Oh that's right, you can't because you can't fit my prosthesis around your leg because you have no stump! Get the fuck off of Twitter, throw your damn phone in the garbage and go try living on the street in the bitter cold like so many vet's I see every week.

Your PTSD is so much bigger than mine or anyone I work with? Fuck you lady. You're a god-damned air thief and the reason some men should double up on condoms.

Fire away people, right now I don't give a damn! :angry4:

 

[Felicity]

I would like to share my experience with the overly PCness.

I posted a little while back in the models only section about joking with my room about my cute SWEATER being a 'squaw' sweater because of the designs on it. I got irritated because a member told me I was being racist so when I logged off I decided to share my story with other models.

*I called it a squaw sweater because when I think of the term squaw, I think traditionally garbed native american woman in a teepee historical setting. I would also like to point out I was talking about a SWEATER not even a person. I didn't even know squaw was a derogatory term or could be considered one.

So I was a little more than surprised when I was called racist and that I "probably call black people the 'n' word and some other not so nice stuff. No politely correcting me, just you know calling me horseshit and racist. I never once said anything bad about being a native american just called a racist for using the incorrect term. :roll:

Then another model mentioned that she was wearing a native american costume for Thanksgiving and hoped she wouldn't get grief for it. So she was griped out too but because "White people are ripping off other cultures to sell their shit."

This was first time I was ever exposed to the word "appropriation" and I think it's absolutely ridiculous!! I don't think other cultures should be mad at people for wearing asian, native american, or any other culture outfits/costumes/clothes. First of all this is really taking things too far and getting too butthurt over CLOTHES. What's next a german girl going to get mad at me for wearing a beer maiden outfit for halloween? Or the Irish for dressing up and mocking them on St. Patty's day? There's many examples that's probably better. Appropriation is a just a fancy word for people to get all upset about things that don't really matter. But that's just my opinion.

Some more of my opinions:
1. I don't think the Washington Redskins should be forced to change their name, or Quaker Oats either.

2. I think white girl jokes are funny.. so are irish, jew, asian, etc jokes

3. I'm not even going to worry about transgender terms because I'm sure each transgender person that meet will have a different term they prefer.

4. I saw on the news that a big movement to change December into "No gender buy month" or something like that to promote gender neutral toys... ridiculous! Toys are toys, and if my daughter wants a barbie, cool. If my daughter wants a tonka truck, cool.

5. Asking a christian CEO of a chick fil a what their position on marriage is either asking them to lie to you or you want them to answer truthfully so that you have a reason to be butthurt. This is just looking for reasons to be upset. Same with Hobby Lobby, why are people surprised that they only cater to Christian holidays? Do you expect a Jewish or Hindi store to cater to Christian holidays? These are very public Christian companies and being upset that they act Christian is just mindhurting.

6. Intent is everything, and people yelling "racism" have a rude awakening if they ever come across something truly racist. Hope it doesn't, but seriously grow some balls and be a strong human that doesn't get offended over everything. (not talking about trigger ppl because that is pyscological disorder).

 

[SaffronBurke]

Also it reminds me this woman who claimed to have PTSD over Twitter arguments:

Few things are more annoying and immature than the "my life is worse than your life" game. I really hate how our society has to make who has it worse into a pissing contest, especially when we don't live in each other's minds and don't know what living anyone else's life is like. It's like that debate about whether giving birth or getting kicked in the balls hurts more - does it even matter? Can't we just agree that both are painful and go on with our days? Yes, people with vaginas sometimes experience pretty bad pain. People with penises also sometimes experience pretty bad pain. What do you think about this weather we're having?