Triggers are about trauma, when a situation triggers the same reaction, thoughts, or feelings a person had when in the midst of a traumatic situation. People now use the word trigger when they offended or upset. I do not like the word trigger being used in this way, it dilutes the reaction people with PTSD experience.

We are almost at the point today where everything offends somebody. Too bad. Grow up. One of my favorites is when others say a certain thing "made them feel uncomfortable." OK, so what? Seeing dog shgt in my yard makes me feel that way too. Deal with it.

We are fast into the time that a doctor will not know the procedure because he opted out of that part of the class and graduated anyway. Maybe the attorney missed something he should know for the same reasons. All of this gives "being professional" a bad name and we are the ones who started and have allowed such things. This is sad.

Is eating a pizza 'cultural appropriation' yet? I haven't got around to checking this morning. I need to know, because I have one in my freezer, and I don't want to be a bad person when I cook and eat it.

For something to be a micro-aggression, there has to be aggressive intent. Asking someone where they're born isn't necessarily an effort to point out that they're "foreign and shouldn't be here." And 'guys' can be either specific to men or gender neutral. If it's clearly meant one way and someone is offended by willfully taking it the other, then that's on them.

This is all about people taking offence at every opportunity, even when none is intended. Some people enjoy that feeling of satisfied indignance, it seems. As someone who identifies as agender (neither a man nor a woman) I've seen a question on here this morning specifically asking women for their opinions on beards. As a homosexual male, I have an opinion on beards, since I've kissed quite a few guys who have them, yet my opinion isn't being asked for them on that thread. Am I offended by it? Not in the slightest. Common language and cishetero assumptions at play. I'm used to it, and I'm not enough of a snowflake to expect everyone else to change their language and understanding of the world to accommodate me. It wasn't hostile to people like me yet I could easily call it out as a micro-aggression if I chose to do so, simply for its failure to be all inclusive.

I’m only going to address the micro aggression aspect because im just waking up and my brain isn’t quite ready to take on the rest. Full disclosure, I didn’t read the full article yet.

I’m your average blonde hair blue eyed Midwesterner. I have a good friend who was adopted from Korea as a baby. Grew up in MN her whole life except for the first month or two. She’s a book editor and is more word oriented than math. She’s constantly asked where she’s from, meaning what country, not what part of MN. People are surprised she’s an editor because Asian = math. There’s a whole slew of other examples as well. It’s very frustrating for her.

A few people have commented that micro aggression is wanting or looking to be offended. I don’t think that’s always the case.

Like you, I am very strongly anti-racist. My political leanings are left to center. And I agree, seems dangerous. To my thinking, it is exactly counter to intellectualism - something our society desperately needs to continue placing a high value on. And its child-like. Social coddling. Some of that stuff might make sense for children in the under 10 years range. Adults in college? Worrisome.

Maybe society/education system has elevated emotions above being rational. Marketing and/or social media have made us more narccistic. We ask "why did I not get a ribbon?" When the question should be "why did they get a ribbon?"
We are always seeking truth, but we romanticise truth. Truth doesn't taste like honey or set us free. Truth is wormwood and it imprisons. We are divided by race, class, orientation, religion, and many other ways. If a person does not want to listen to a case about rape, it is because they are denying the truth about rape. The truth is that rape is probably common in society and in human nature, that it tends to happen to women. Rape is very frightening and it is a big problem in America. Rape is wrong. A person who does not want to listen to a description of a rape case is doing it based on emotions. Fear or sadness.
A simpler example: No one wants to talk about child hunger or the number of children dying everyday from lack if food while eating lunch at a buffet. It makes us feel horrible. The truth is child hunger is a problem, the truth is the majority of people don't care and don't want to hear about it, the truth is that it makes me FEEL bad, and truth is I'd rather banish the problem from my mind. The truth might be that the problem can't be solved, the truth is maybe I am part if the problem. The truth is maybe the problem doesn't run parallel to my idea of God. If a problem exist maybe god does not care. Maybe it makes me question god or my affirmations. Maybe it makes a crack on the windshield of my worldview, so I'd rather not go down that road.

Agreed! I would rather that no such sentiments ("trigger warning because you're gonna get offended" ) or coddling existed.

Do you think that the sentiments of "getting triggered" and "micro-agressions", and feeling "butt-hurt" were indirectly caused by "bystanders" allowing abusive language to fester into toxicity? EDIT: I.e. Arguments are not called out when they become abusive instead of them staying rational.

Even as someone who is pretty liberal himself, I agree that things like microaggressions are ridiculous. It's trying to be offended by something that's not offensive. If it were something offensive, it would be an actual aggression.

(I would say as an aside, the "job given to most qualified" thing would irk me, just because I know in Utah speak thats code for "given to my family/friend/ward-mate". But then its not a micro aggression, its hiding an actual aggression)

The trigger warning thing I can understand, to a point. I wouldn't want people to be uncomfortable with a topic if there's a real reason for it, and if the topic wouldn't come up in the course of a natural discussion. Like, if there was a motivational speaker that came to campus to talk about business or something, then went on a (scripted, but un-known to students) discussion about rape, I would think people in the audience who weren't prepared for that to be warned ahead of time.

But in the course of say, law, that discussion is..uncomfortable, but warranted. It's part of it. The surgeon example is a good one.

So yeah in summary: Yes to trigger warnings if its not something that would come up as part of the class/job/etc. No to microaggressions.

Edit: I realize I could probably use to reinforce my argument for why I'd allow the trigger warning thing. It actually has happened to me (yeah, yea, anecdotal evidence I know haha) where I was in a conference and they all of a sudden started talking about suicide in depth. I was still struggling at that time, like..crisis days. So that made me..super uncomfortable and wanted to leave. Didn't see it coming.

Of course, as a CJ/philosophy student suicide comes up all the time but its more..academic? in nature. Not so much in that presentation.

I disagree. That's like saying we should continue to have white only water fountains and resturants to teach black people the reality of racism.