Trigger Warnings Are Too Triggering

[Mike]

You read that right: trigger warnings are now too triggering. This according to our friendly lunatics over at Brandeis College.

The reason: the word trigger suggests guns, guns suggest violence, and violence triggers the college-aged toddlers that are now too frightened to utter the word that describes that which frightens them. So they will now be replacing "trigger warnings" with "content notes" (I swear I'm not making any of this up. Just click on the link and see for yourself).

Other words and phrases on the chopping block:

1) rule of thumb
2) killing it
3) picnic

All too "oppressive" says the folks at Brandeis.

Full article here: https://nypost.com/2021/06/24/brande...rule-of-thumb/

[Gemma13]

Chewing the cud on this, it might turn out to be a good thing.

Putting in "Content Note" instead of "Trigger Warning" could defuse and minimalize some of the crazy suggestions allowing a migration back to freer speech.

Comedians should get a kick out of this one.

[Gemma13]

I just watched the film "Testament of Youth" again. Vera Brittain's powerful memoirs of World War 1.

Male teenagers going to war, suffering unimaginable traumas.  Female teenagers becoming nursing staff witnessing and experiencing unimaginable traumas.

The contrast to youth of today crying about their "trigger" traumas is unfathomable.  When one points out this juxtaposition and reminds them there are still millions of teenagers in the world experiencing the same unimaginable traumas as those in Vera's memoirs, so perhaps a slight redirect of activism could be considered, it creates more trauma.

How dare I minimalize their trauma by using a comparison.

These young adults, (I have 2 out of 3 following the pied piper), are not above caring.  Quite the opposite.  They have good hearts, want to help the world, and have astounding levels of intelligence.  So how did the power of indoctrination into #poorme happen so swiftly?  We've literally watched it materialize before our eyes.

There was no space for conversation between this transition.  It seemed to literally happen overnight as far as transitionary phases go.  We have some really good theories coming out, but are these scholars still just as confused?

 What the hell am I missing here?

[Pam]

Posted by Gemma13 (here)
I just watched the film "Testament of Youth" again. Vera Brittain's powerful memoirs of World War 1.

Male teenagers going to war, suffering unimaginable traumas.  Female teenagers becoming nursing staff witnessing and experiencing unimaginable traumas.

The contrast to youth of today crying about their "trigger" traumas is unfathomable.  When one points out this juxtaposition and reminds them there are still millions of teenagers in the world experiencing the same unimaginable traumas as those in Vera's memoirs, so perhaps a slight redirect of activism could be considered, it creates more trauma.

How dare I minimalize their trauma by using a comparison.

These young adults, (I have 2 out of 3 following the pied piper), are not above caring.  Quite the opposite.  They have good hearts, want to help the world, and have astounding levels of intelligence.  So how did the power of indoctrination into #poorme happen so swiftly?  We've literally watched it materialize before our eyes.

There was no space for conversation between this transition.  It seemed to literally happen overnight as far as transitionary phases go.  We have some really good theories coming out, but are these scholars still just as confused?

 What the hell am I missing here?

It's interesting. When I go into a store in Washington state, it is the younger males with double masks. The younger males that once felt invincible.. really sad.

[Kryztian]

[Note: I did a little research after posting this and significantly revised my opinions, about 10 posts down. Sorry Brandeis University, you did not deserve to be unjustly smeared by FoxNews and the New York Post! ]

Universities like Brandeis are doing for language what McDonald's is doing for "food". They are turning it into a big warm pile of comfortable and easily digestible mush. Nothing too spicy or crunchy should be allowed - it all has to be like the pureed goop that 90 year olds with Alheimer's are served at a nursing home - you wouldn't want to excite your digestive system with too many chili peppers or too much fibre, so why excite peoples consciousness with "trigger words?"

And so they've taken it upon themselve to dictate what language we should be using and shouldn't be using. To me, it's not about the values they are preaching, for example "gender inclusivity". Personally, I am not happy when people are excluded because of their gender, but I also find that trying to exclude, demote, shame, etc. people for use of words like "rule of thumb" or "picnic" quite problematic.

Language is the most democratic phenomena out there and has evolved over thousands of years. When you speak to another person, you choose words, you choose to speak according to the conventions of language, and sometimes, to try creating new ones. When you listen to another person speak, you choose to affirm are reject what they say, partly based on the language they use. So, every time you speak, every time you react to speech, you are voting about language and affecting the "drift" of language. Our language, as it exists today, is the result of the unconscious decisions of billions of people voting each and everytime they open their mouth or nod their heads. If any one had more influence than the average Joe or Jane on language, it would be poets and song writers - people who gave the language new twists and new life and created words that would resound in the consciousness of others and help them find new ways to meaningfully express themselves.

It seems that petty academic bureaucrats want to replace poets and songwriters with their own edicts. Why read Shakespeare or Maya Angelou for ideas about language when you have Brandeis's "Compendium of Potentially Oppressive Language” to guide you instead? Perhaps they should fire their entire English department, and some of them could probably find jobs in an expanded Linguistics department which would then be dedicated to not just observing the phenomenon of language but determining and policing it's future use.

I am sure Brandeis spent a lot of time, money and effort on studies to discover what words "trigger" people. I think they could also learn a lot with a simple one sentence poll:

My anger is triggered the most when:

1. I hear the word "picnic?"
   
   
2. I hear the expression "rule of thumb?"
   
   
3. I hear that academic bureaucrats are trying to micromanage and police the use of language?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Yeh when I saw that I slapped myself in the forehead. But it didn't surprise me, I saw precisely the trajectory of this nonsense years ago. With each new iteration of 'political correctness' the IQ slips a notch, the outlet for individuality and expression grows just a little narrower, and people become more disempowered - and hence more submissive. This then paves the way for the next iteration to bed in.

Control human language and you control human thought. Eventually people become so sensitive they live purely on the edge of their anger, not their empathy. We've reached a place now where words alone are considered actual violence to these people, and can cause actual trauma. By design 'they've' engineered a shift in human perception, away from reason, logic, and common sense, to base emotional responses. But I think it's less about what they want people to see, rather what they want them to ignore.

[Mike]

Posted by Gemma13 (here)
I just watched the film "Testament of Youth" again. Vera Brittain's powerful memoirs of World War 1.

Male teenagers going to war, suffering unimaginable traumas.  Female teenagers becoming nursing staff witnessing and experiencing unimaginable traumas.

The contrast to youth of today crying about their "trigger" traumas is unfathomable.  When one points out this juxtaposition and reminds them there are still millions of teenagers in the world experiencing the same unimaginable traumas as those in Vera's memoirs, so perhaps a slight redirect of activism could be considered, it creates more trauma.

How dare I minimalize their trauma by using a comparison.

These young adults, (I have 2 out of 3 following the pied piper), are not above caring.  Quite the opposite.  They have good hearts, want to help the world, and have astounding levels of intelligence.  So how did the power of indoctrination into #poorme happen so swiftly?  We've literally watched it materialize before our eyes.

There was no space for conversation between this transition.  It seemed to literally happen overnight as far as transitionary phases go.  We have some really good theories coming out, but are these scholars still just as confused?

 What the hell am I missing here?

Boy, great question there. It actually didn't happen overnight. It's been happening all along. Speaking for myself, I've only just noticed recently. But it certainly does seem like it happened overnight.

I think the groundwork had been laid, and George Floyd's death was sort of a nucleating event. It expedited everything.

How did it seem to happen so fast? I think it was actually happening sort of slowly - like a huge snake lazily wrapping itself around an animal it's about to eat - and what we're experiencing now is the squeeze. Thing is we didn't notice the snake approaching or doing the slow wrapping. College kids have been getting indoctrinated since the 90's, and now they're out in the world spreading the poison. The lunacy is now hitting on all cylinders. It's not just college kids anymore - it's high school and grade school kids.

Why are they all falling for it?

1) kid's want to fit in with their peers. Nothing is more terrifying than going against the grain as a kid or teen.
2) kids are afraid of being labeled a racist, transphobe, bigot, fascist etc. Second most terrifying thing.
3) kids want to be on the right side of history (because, as you said many of them care deeply about the world)
4) kids are presented with very low resolution ideas/suggestions/grievances that weaponize their natural idealism and compassion, and then are provided with a very basic but powerful ideology to fight for those grievances (grievances which are vaguely true'ish in some instances but totally lacking in context and fullness...but just vaguely true'ish enough to convince them of their moral high ground)
5) they have adults (teachers and professors) teaching them this nonsense. That's pretty powerful

And then there's the "conspiratorial" angle. Yuri Benzomov explains demoralization and ideological subversion quite well in his videos. But i think it goes way beyond the communists. It goes up up up to our deep state entities and - dare i say it - the demonic influences above them

[Mike]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
Universities like Brandeis are doing for language what McDonald's is doing for "food". They are turning it into a big warm pile of comfortable and easily digestible mush. Nothing too spicy or crunchy should be allowed - it all has to be like the pureed goop that 90 year olds with Alheimer's are served at a nursing home - you wouldn't want to excite your digestive system with too many chili peppers or too much fibre, so why excite peoples consciousness with "trigger words?"

And so they've taken it upon themselve to dictate what language we should be using and shouldn't be using. To me, it's not about the values they are preaching, for example "gender inclusivity". Personally, I am not happy when people are excluded because of their gender, but I also find that trying to exclude, demote, shame, etc. people for use of words like "rule of thumb" or "picnic" quite problematic.

Language is the most democratic phenomena out there and has evolved over thousands of years. When you speak to another person, you choose words, you choose to speak according to the conventions of language, and sometimes, to try creating new ones. When you listen to another person speak, you choose to affirm are reject what they say, partly based on the language they use. So, every time you speak, every time you react to speech, you are voting about language and affecting the "drift" of language. Our language, as it exists today, is the result of the unconscious decisions of billions of people voting each and everytime they open their mouth or nod their heads. If any one had more influence than the average Joe or Jane on language, it would be poets and song writers - people who gave the language new twists and new life and created words that would resound in the consciousness of others and help them find new ways to meaningfully express themselves.

It seems that petty academic bureaucrats want to replace poets and songwriters with their own edicts. Why read Shakespeare or Maya Angelou for ideas about language when you have Brandeis's "Compendium of Potentially Oppressive Language” to guide you instead? Perhaps they should fire their entire English department, and some of them could probably find jobs in an expanded Linguistics department which would then be dedicated to not just observing the phenomenon of language but determining and policing it's future use.

I am sure Brandeis spent a lot of time, money and effort on studies to discover what words "trigger" people. I think they could also learn a lot with a simple one sentence poll:

My anger is triggered the most when:

1. I hear the word "picnic?"
   
   
2. I hear the expression "rule of thumb?"
   
   
3. I hear that academic bureaucrats are trying to micromanage and police the use of language?

Wow, excellent post Chris. It's worth reading a few times. You really f'in nail it here dude.

[Gemma13]

Dumping my 3am wake-up notes.  DNA.  Okay, Makes sense.  Bloodlines and control and all that.  The controllers have been doing this for a very, very long time, with interdimensional help, so we can only cringe thinking about what they got going on in their underground labs.  And transmission  for adding sleeper agents, to be activated at any time with "triggers", is easy.  Vaccinations come to mind of course but god knows what sophisticated tech they have available.

Youngest of three has different genetics.  She went textbook teenage rebellion, (drugs, sex, rock 'n roll, might be fun to drop out two months before graduating).  Easy peasy, she will hate me on and off for a few years as I do everything in my power to fight and protect her from the wolves in the street but I'm familiar with the enemy, so just got to navigate daily to get her over the line and pray she doesn't become a statistic, which sadly a mate or two of hers did.  She made it.  She's also aware of the indoctrinations now and doesn't buy into them.

But i think it goes way beyond the communists. It goes up up up to our deep state entities and - dare i say it - the demonic influences above them

Glad you dared to.  Living this nightmare first hand it really is as if something inside these kids was activated that zombied them into offering up their families, and the generations before them, as sacrificial lambs to a demanding God.

My eldest (son) came home one day, hesitant, but bold in his accusation that I was an abusive parent because I had yelled at them a few times. Okay, tell me more.  He did.  I said you've just described every parent you know.  You're grandparents that you adore, aunties, uncles, friends parents, literally every parent.  He said it doesn't change the fact.  I asked him to bring me the data that had convinced him of this so we could analyse it together.  He never did and from that day forth I was shut down, everytime, no matter which approach I tried to reach him for a conversation.  Some days I copped the crazy condescending laughter we see on campuses, joined in with his sister, who was also zombied hook, line and sinker.  There is literally no rhyme or reason here.

In an overheard conversation between my mum and son on the phone, when mum was trying to give it another shot, he said it's breaking him up that he can't work things out with me but he really thinks I'm beyond having the capacity to care, for anyone!  Say what  As any parent that would literally take a thousand bullets for their children knows, this cuts deep.

The youngest, different genetics, went along with her older siblings for awhile as it was a great weapon to get her own way in her rebellion, but it didn't stick, and now she's on the receiving end of their persecution for innocently saying a benign word colloquially.

I am so very appreciative of people out there throwing everything they can at this to study, analyse and try to find solutions.  But if this is what I now think it might be, they may only help a few and we have a generation of highly charged, (innocent), minions marching in lockstep as they round up people for the chambers.

I think the bridge I have to cross to reach my kids reaches into dangerous territory.  Time to bring out the big guns.

[amor]

They have perfected the art of brainwashing, which only the STRIPES ON THE BACK they will receive when they have to face the world alone will convince them they have been duped, tricked into pursuing a career or way in life which manages to rob them
of a god-given destiny which would have happened without this evil intervention.

[Ewan]

Posted by Mike (here)
You read that right: trigger warnings are now too triggering. This according to our friendly lunatics over at Brandeis College.

The reason: the word trigger suggests guns, guns suggest violence, and violence triggers the college-aged toddlers that are now too frightened to utter the word that describes that which frightens them. So they will now be replacing "trigger warnings" with "content notes" (I swear I'm not making any of this up. Just click on the link and see for yourself).

Other words and phrases on the chopping block:

1) rule of thumb
2) killing it
3) picnic

All too "oppressive" says the folks at Brandeis.

Full article here: https://nypost.com/2021/06/24/brande...rule-of-thumb/

When the revolution comes, dear brother.... and sister................ and non-specific gender compatriot, may I suggest the good folks at Brandeis be the first up against the wall? Or at least in the top 10 allowing for other people's... persons.... entities, opinions to count also.

[Mike]

Posted by Gemma13 (here)
Dumping my 3am wake-up notes.  DNA.  Okay, Makes sense.  Bloodlines and control and all that.  The controllers have been doing this for a very, very long time, with interdimensional help, so we can only cringe thinking about what they got going on in their underground labs.  And transmission  for adding sleeper agents, to be activated at any time with "triggers", is easy.  Vaccinations come to mind of course but god knows what sophisticated tech they have available.

Youngest of three has different genetics.  She went textbook teenage rebellion, (drugs, sex, rock 'n roll, might be fun to drop out two months before graduating).  Easy peasy, she will hate me on and off for a few years as I do everything in my power to fight and protect her from the wolves in the street but I'm familiar with the enemy, so just got to navigate daily to get her over the line and pray she doesn't become a statistic, which sadly a mate or two of hers did.  She made it.  She's also aware of the indoctrinations now and doesn't buy into them.

But i think it goes way beyond the communists. It goes up up up to our deep state entities and - dare i say it - the demonic influences above them

Glad you dared to.  Living this nightmare first hand it really is as if something inside these kids was activated that zombied them into offering up their families, and the generations before them, as sacrificial lambs to a demanding God.

My eldest (son) came home one day, hesitant, but bold in his accusation that I was an abusive parent because I had yelled at them a few times. Okay, tell me more.  He did.  I said you've just described every parent you know.  You're grandparents that you adore, aunties, uncles, friends parents, literally every parent.  He said it doesn't change the fact.  I asked him to bring me the data that had convinced him of this so we could analyse it together.  He never did and from that day forth I was shut down, everytime, no matter which approach I tried to reach him for a conversation.  Some days I copped the crazy condescending laughter we see on campuses, joined in with his sister, who was also zombied hook, line and sinker.  There is literally no rhyme or reason here.

In an overheard conversation between my mum and son on the phone, when mum was trying to give it another shot, he said it's breaking him up that he can't work things out with me but he really thinks I'm beyond having the capacity to care, for anyone!  Say what  As any parent that would literally take a thousand bullets for their children knows, this cuts deep.

The youngest, different genetics, went along with her older siblings for awhile as it was a great weapon to get her own way in her rebellion, but it didn't stick, and now she's on the receiving end of their persecution for innocently saying a benign word colloquially.

I am so very appreciative of people out there throwing everything they can at this to study, analyse and try to find solutions.  But if this is what I now think it might be, they may only help a few and we have a generation of highly charged, (innocent), minions marching in lockstep as they round up people for the chambers.

I think the bridge I have to cross to reach my kids reaches into dangerous territory.  Time to bring out the big guns.

I don't even know where to begin Gemma. Maybe a good place to start is to say I'm really sorry you've had to go thru all that. I'd like to give you a hug!

Brainwashing? Social conditioning? Peer pressure? Emotional narcissism? They all make a certain formal sense but it goes much deeper than that, doesn't it? When I look into the eyes of these people I see something more akin to possession. And I'm not just talking about ideological possession. I'm talking about possession.

What stood out most in your post is the gaslighting...the attempt to make you seem uncaring or unhinged or something. And disputing your alleged guilt is not only futile, but considered to be an added offense. Because if you're right then they are wrong, and that can't possibly be true. There is quite literally no room in their ideology for fallibility. They're right, you're wrong..and any attempt to dispute that is - in their eyes - just further proof of your guilt.

I had this girlfriend a few years back, and holy hell she was one f'ed up woman. She lived in Seattle, which might explain it..because she was my age and hadn't had the ideological brainwashing the younger generations are getting. And just for context here: I kind of dimly knew what "social justice" was back then, and "wokeism", but had nothing beyond a superficial understanding really. She was my first exposure to all this lunacy, and tho I knew something was terribly wrong with her I lacked the vocabulary to properly describe it to myself.

Once I made an offhand comment like, "you're not gonna want to hear this but I'm gonna tell you anyway.." And she said "don't tell me, I don't want to know." Well I told her anyway. I can't even recall what it is I had to tell her, but it's besides the point. She immediately equated what I'd done to rape. I said something against her will, she said, and it was no different than rape according to her way of thinking. Now, I should have ran as fast as I could in the other direction at this point, but strangely enough I didn't (but I didn't hang around much longer)

She also claimed to desperately want a relationship with her estranged daughter. But when her daughter came by once or twice a week to watch 'Star Wars' she just couldn't do it because it was too "traumatizing". No joke..that's what she said. Watching 'Star Wars' and whatever else her daughter wanted to watch was too "traumatizing". If I suggested she was being unreasonable (which I did, more than once) she'd just lump me in with all the others that had allegedy victimized her her whole life, and act like I was the unreasonable one for even suggesting she watch the movie.

Gosh there's so much I could say about her. It would require an entirely new thread. One thing she said to me once was this: if you masturbate to somebody, you're obligated to contact them first and get their permission. Otherwise it's "psychic rape" or some such thing. I'm not kidding! She really said that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Begs the question: how does someone get that distorted? One thing every bit of their ideology has in common is it's finger wagging at everyone besides themselves. It's never their fault. Every failure, every shortcoming, every this and every that..it can all be traced back to what someone or something did to them. There is no personal responsibility. And I think that's it's allure. That's one of the perks, especially for young people who want to be totally free of that sort of thing. It not only enables weaknesses, it glorifies them and recasts them as strengths. And true strength, which is found in personal responsibility, is viewed as "toxic". So, everything is sort of inverted

[Gemma13]

I'll take the hug thank you.

Speaking of traumatising film, as talking was out of the equation I suggested to my 15yr old daughter that I would like to watch an educational doco with her on avoiding all the traps and seductions online, etc.  I explained there will be some awful parts that have happened to people but we can pause and work through them together. 

She seemed keen.  I was beside myself and only had to give her a link to check it out before we made a time.

She came back almost hysterical and said how could I be so cruel by wanting her to watch something that had trauma in it. Yet they couldn't wait for the next episode of Game of Thrones.

I was gobsmacked.  How the hell was I supposed to help protect my kids through awareness of seriously demented individuals who didn't need to hide behind bushes or wear trenchcoats anymore because they could lure kids out sitting on their couches.

Your girlfriend experience is very interesting Mike. Gives much more food for thought about the sinister side to what is going on here. Thank you for sharing.

[Mike]

Know what I think would be remarkably helpful, on a very basic level? Mandated military service. Maybe just a year of it.

What these people so desperately lack is a connection to reality, and what better way to reacquaint them than a year of military training.

I dated an Israeli girl when I was 35 and she was 25. She did 2 years of required military in Israel, and she was totally cool. Not a shred of woke in her that I could detect. And I put it down to the military service, at least partly.

I can think of several young'ish people I know off the top of my head that are similar.

[Kryztian]

So, I tracked down the "Suggested Language List". I really wanted to know what the heck is wrong with "picnic"?

In Brandeis's defence, the list of problematic words and expressions is not on their website, but it is linked to from it. IT IS NOT BRANDEIS'S list. It is a project of some of their students and administrators. The first thing stated on the official Brandeis page are:

Brandeis University is deeply committed to free speech and free expression as articulated in our principles of free expression.

and there is a link to the page articulating those principles. And it is a good page and states:

The university has a responsibility to encourage the airing of the widest range of political and scholarly opinions and to prevent attempts to shut down conversations, no matter what their topic.

Amen!

None of this information was mentioned by the New York Post, or by Fox News, who originally broke the story - they are clearly misrepresenting what is going on here. They are trying to conflate the activity of a few students with the official policy of the university. If there is any triggering of anger going on, it is by these news outlets, that are trying to generate anger against the left, just as CNN and MSNBC are trying to trigger left anger against the right. If you want to end the triggering of useless, misdirected anger, all you have to do is not watch main stream news. (And for the record, I will say they triggered my anger against Brandeis.)

Never the less, this story is still interesting to me because I think it says something about well meaning but misguided attempts of students to make the world a kinder place by changing the language. So "picnic" appears on their "Violent Language" page, which suggests replacing terms like "killing it" with "great job", and has explanation as to why these terms are problematic. For example:

Instead of...Wife beater
Consider using ...White ribbed tank top, tank, undershirt
Explanation: This term trivializes relationship violence.

Well, I only learned that term for white tank top undershirt a few years ago, and if I hadn't, I would be grateful to this list pointing that out to me. I really doubt that if I used that language, even to someone who had been traumatized by domestic violence, that it would cause hurt feelings, although you never know. On the other hand, it might be useful for Brandeis graduates not to say they are wearing a Fruit of the Loom wife beater under their dress shirt at a job interview because that might cause offense if their interviewer, espcially if they were the same person who authored this list, and they loose out on the job.

Instead of... Rule of thumb
Consider using ... General rule
Explanation: This expression allegedly comes from an old British law allowing men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb; however, no written record of this law exists today. The earliest recording of this usage of the expression is attributed to English judge Sir Francis Buller in the 18th century; it has also been found in US court records from the 19th century.[/B]

Wow, that is an interesting bit of historical trivia! But if you use that expression is anyone going to make this association? Is anyone really going to get sincerely offended by this antiquated phrase?

But here is the one I really wanted to know about

Instead of...Picnic
Consider using ... Outdoor eating
ExplanationThe term picnic can be associated with lynchings of Black people in the United States, during which white spectators were said to have watched while eating.

Lynching! Yowaz! I had no idea. Lynching has a long and ugly history in the United States. There were at least 5,000 of them between 1882 and 1968 and while the vast majority of victims were black, some were white, Mexican and even Chinese Americans. They were usually very public affairs, with crowds of drunken, angry people in attendance. There are a few historical records where these events were referred to "picnics" in newspapers, but I don't think there was anyone there with a blanket and picnic blanket.

Picnic actually comes from the French "pique-nique" that goes back to the early 18th century.

the French word pique-nique is based on the verb piquer, which means 'pick', 'peck', or 'nab', and the rhyming addition nique, which means 'thing of little importance', 'bagatelle', 'trifle'

Hunt Picnic by François Lemoyne, 1723

The link between the pleasantry of a picnic and the barbarity of a lynching is long gone from most peoples consciousness and is a very small part of what "picnics" were historically. Isn't is more likely that people might associate "rope" with lynching? Are we going to ban "rope"? Should we allow Home Depot to sell "rope"? If we go down this path, there won't be any words left in the dictionary. Are you really going to tell people that you are going to attend a "church out door eating event"?

I absolutely refuse to allow anyone to restrict my use of language, but at the same time, I do want to select effective and appropriate words, know their historic origin and not use words that distract from my argument, that have a lot of baggage I am unaware of or unnecessarily offends people who don't deserve it. But "as a rule of thumb" I don't plan on totally sanitizing my words according to overly restrictive hyper-aware politically correct guidelines.

I will just say I've revised my opinion of Brandeis and there language policies and have the utmost respect for their free speech policies. Meanwhile, Fox News and NY Post do deserve to be beaten by a stick, but one no wider than my thumb, but many, many times ... and hard. And as for the well meaning students who wrote this list, I don't plan to adhere strictly your guidelines, but I do appreciate that you have gotten me to think about language and for the historical tidbits.

https://www.brandeis.edu/parc/accoun...guagelist.html
https://www.brandeis.edu/free-expres...les/index.html
https://sites.google.com/brandeis.ed...olent-language
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/ji.../2021/july.htm

[Patient]

If only everyone understood that many tools are being used right now to divide all of us.

And I believe that slavery has no boundaries and every race has been the slave to someone at some time.

Now is the time for the unity of all humans on Earth! (and elsewhere) If you left, maybe you should come back to help.

[Orph]

Posted by Mike (here)
Know what I think would be remarkably helpful, on a very basic level? Mandated military service. Maybe just a year of it.

The problem with that is, these people would demand that the military conform to their standards rather than them conforming to military standards. (Which may be happening in our military anyway).

[Agape]

I hope they will add “people/person of color” to the list.

It’s being widely used on your national media so also internationally adopted idiom these days ( don’t forget the guys in EU virtually copy everything from the list in matter of days, months or ..years, depending on their presumed brain speed).

It heats me up each time I hear the connotation. Of course it’s often used in rather positive and uplifting way such as person so n so are the first “person of colour” who won the race.
Are they saying that the “color” defines them or me somehow and predisposes is to greater or smaller feats or defeat, straight away?
Are they saying they really can’t get over the feature ever ?

It makes me nauseous whenever I hear it, on behalf of all of us.


I’m quite pale for sure but even then, I have millions of colours and shades in my spectrum so does everyone else.

Hope someone stops it.

🙏

[Kryztian]

Posted by Agape (here)
I hope they will add “people/person of color” to the list.

That never really bothered me until now I think "What am I? A colorless person?"

Alas, it you take language too seriously, you are destined to get offended. You just have to realize that people are trying to do the best they can with it, except for the Edward Bernays's of the world, who are using it as a tool for deception, manipulation and enslavement.

Whatever terms you use to define yourself is fine with me, just don't restrict me in how I define myself.

Well, except perhaps "LatinX". I don't understand how you add an "X" to get the plural form. Are any of my "LatinX" friends loving the term "LatinX"???

[Nasu]

Great posts. I'm getting triggered by all these content notes. lol. Can't we all just try and continue to respect each other without everything becoming a massive trigger to someone. It's not all about you! Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....x.... N