The trigger warnings suggest that those who have been sexually assaulted don't need to read the article because they already know more than what it is going to say, and it is cruel to have them read it without suggesting it may cause them grief through invoking their own pain.

To be 'triggered' by trigger warnings is certainly a constructed prejudice against empathy.

Can you explain how it fails at achieving its goals? What do you think the goal of a trigger warning is?

It's supposed to warn readers who have had similar experience that the content of the article could cause flashbacks of their own experiences.

And I somehow can't shake off the feeling that all it does is promote the victim mentality in the the author and the audience.

Also good job white knighting your pants off in this thread.

> And I somehow can't shake off the feeling that all it does is promote the victim mentality in the the author and the audience.

So it's not so much that it doesn't accomplish re-introducing trauma, but that it has other negative effects? I am legitimately curious.

> Also good job white knighting your pants off in this thread.

/me rolls his eyes

He has a point, though. Between you, sneak, and wilkie, I can see why people are hesitant to discuss this topic openly. It's almost like the three of you are looking for a fight on this topic and ready for all comers. Like if it weren't for you three, we would all be woefully misinformed about sexual assault. There are opinions on this topic that differ from yours and in almost every one, I can find two or more of you going to the mat on how wrong it is.

At multiple points while reading this thread, I've come across your/their username again and said to myself, Jesus, take a break, let other people speak. I really rolled my eyes when you brought up the woman whose feelings you hurt on Twitter and subsequent witch hunt, as well. Trust me, the "witch hunt" you experienced after that suffocates in comparison to what Joe has in store.

To your credit, you are at least the most civil and coherent of the three. As a victim of false accusation, it was really swell to be dismissed out of hand by sneak.

Have you seen this thread? Not only are people misinformed about what constitutes sexual assault, but on top of that they are ignorant of what constitutes consent. It's quite honestly TERRIFYING.

Hey, look who's here! Also, I am more terrified of absolutists like yourself than anything else I've seen in this thread. Period.

Tell me, are you refreshing this thread constantly?

> let other people speak.

How do my comments prevent anyone else's speech?

Take a look at sneak's other comment nearby in this thread. Yours are more civil at least, but in the wake of these assault broadcasts there is always a knuckles fight like this.

Everybody has an opinion. By spending hours of your time shooting down every opinion that differs from your own, you are working toward an environment where yours is the lone voice. Silencing dissent, basically.

As I said though, your actions are the most tame of the three I mentioned. In these threads, people who disagree with the "burn him!" mentality end up aflame themselves; victim blamer! rape apologist! silence the victim! asshole! It's all part of the same push against disagreement on this unique, taboo topic.

That's not all it does. It's okay to be wrong. We've all been there.

You are right. It's not all it does, it's only the majority of all it does.