Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7958586" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't deny that it might be possible to &quot;trigger&quot; someone at some point. But then again, I don't disagree that the real and more serious problem is that it was crass and distasteful. And so far as I can tell, no one was actually &quot;triggered&quot; by this incident - they found it crass and distasteful.But you got to understand, that a community that has argued for decades that nothing is crass, or distasteful, or immoral, and that all morality is subjective, has to come about rediscovering taste and morality as objective absolutes the long way around. They can't come at the issue head on, because that would mean admitting that the had it wrong in the first place. So, they reinvent &quot;right&quot; and the notion of a way people ought to behave, without appealing to old-fashioned obsolete &quot;patriarchal values&quot; like morality, decency or taste. And, so far as that goes, my response is, well it's about time. So don't be too hard on them. Baby steps and all. &quot;Triggering&quot; represents at least some notion of concrete right and wrong and why. They are starting to fundamentally understand the notion of harm. Maybe one of these days they'll eventually realize even consent is a really really low bar.Now, are they likely now to implement something like a &quot;comic book code&quot; to protect public morality in the name of what used to be called decency and now gets developed from this low bar idea of protecting people from being &quot;triggered&quot;?&nbsp; Maybe.&nbsp; Beyond the irony, so what?&nbsp; God love 'em, they are moving in the right direction whether they know it or not.&nbsp; So let it go.&nbsp; It's not worth fighting over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7958586, member: 4937"] I don't deny that it might be possible to "trigger" someone at some point. But then again, I don't disagree that the real and more serious problem is that it was crass and distasteful. And so far as I can tell, no one was actually "triggered" by this incident - they found it crass and distasteful. But you got to understand, that a community that has argued for decades that nothing is crass, or distasteful, or immoral, and that all morality is subjective, has to come about rediscovering taste and morality as objective absolutes the long way around. They can't come at the issue head on, because that would mean admitting that the had it wrong in the first place. So, they reinvent "right" and the notion of a way people ought to behave, without appealing to old-fashioned obsolete "patriarchal values" like morality, decency or taste. And, so far as that goes, my response is, well it's about time. So don't be too hard on them. Baby steps and all. "Triggering" represents at least some notion of concrete right and wrong and why. They are starting to fundamentally understand the notion of harm. Maybe one of these days they'll eventually realize even consent is a really really low bar. Now, are they likely now to implement something like a "comic book code" to protect public morality in the name of what used to be called decency and now gets developed from this low bar idea of protecting people from being "triggered"? Maybe. Beyond the irony, so what? God love 'em, they are moving in the right direction whether they know it or not. So let it go. It's not worth fighting over. [/QUOTE]

Verification