Another case that’s interesting to consider is the Penny Arcade dickwolves controversy. The PA fellows made a comic which mentioned the word “rape”, some readers got offended, and the PA guys, being thick-skinned individuals, dismissed and mocked their claims of being offended by making “dickwolves” T-shirts. Hubbub ensues.
What’s most interesting about this case is that, apart from perhaps some bloggers, many of the people taking offense appear to be rape survivors for whom reading the word “rape” is traumatic (I guess? This is what I gathered, but being thick-skinned and not a rape survivor it is impossible for me to understand). I don’t think it’s possible to claim Machiavellian maneuverings here, given that a feminist blog who made a dickwolves protest shirt eventually stopped selling the shirt on account of some rape survivors saying that the shirt acted as a trigger for them.
More to the point: there is apparently a small population for whom using the word “rape” causes psychic horror. So what, are we now not allowed to ever use that word? Or can we not even allude to the act? Of course, reasonable concessions should be made (i.e. not using the word when directly in the presence of such a person), but at what point do sensitive individuals need to take it upon themselves to relocate their attention elsewhere?
I think that the mechanism for rape trauma triggers is different from the mechanism for Muhammed representation offense taking, and so the two should probably be treated differently. The trouble with the Dickwolves controversy is that you wound up with offense-takers and trauma-havers on the same side, in the same camp, so they got conflated.
Hmm, but it does seem like trauma triggers and the psychic-distress-via-salmon work via the same mechanism. So probably the key here is to distinguish between actual psychic stress and feigned stress used for status maneuvers. It is not, however, clear to me how to do that in general.
No, the key here is to distinguish between actual psychic stress not used for status maneuvers and actual psychic stress used for status maneuvers. Which is of course even harder.
I tentatively agree, except I think rape victims might be concerned about no longer holding their beliefs about the moral significance of how people in general talk about triggering topics. If those values could be maintained without the stress reaction I would expect them to want the pill.
Yes, I think it’s a crucial distinction that the brits in question would almost all choose to have the electrodes removed immediately. And shortly they would take considerably less offense at pictures of salmon.
Far fewer of the offended muslims (it’s not the case that all muslims are equally offended) would immediately choose to rewire their brains or rewrite their software to avoid the psychic pain. This is because their current configuration was chosen, to a far greater extent than the brit’s was.
This is an important point. In this sense, the Brits are victims of something they can’t control, but if the Muslims had a choice, they wouldn’t control it. So they bear some responsibility for their own offense.
It really is a Gandhi and the murder pill scenario—the training which made them offended by pictures of Mohammed is the same training which makes them not want the vulnerability to offense removed.
I’ve got a mild discomfort with Christianity. It’s not the result of personal experience with anti-Semitism or having to deal with obnoxious Christians. It’s actually a bit embarrassing to have the discomfort, when there are so many people who have good personal reasons to dislike the religion.
Born to Kvetch is a book about Yiddish and the culture it’s part of. There’s a chapter about detestation of Christianity—I don’t have as strong a flavor, but I bet I inherited the way I feel. [1]
The thing is, I suspect that the way I feel about Christianity doesn’t actually serve me, but it’s hard for me to really think about it because the idea of giving it up triggers the idea of not being uncomfortable with (ick!) Christianity.
[1] I believe that a lot of emotional reactions are learned by imitation of emotional reactions.
More to the point: there is apparently a small population for whom using the word “rape” causes psychic horror. So what, are we now not allowed to ever use that word?
I think the point is that people shouldn’t use it as a joke so much.
Another case that’s interesting to consider is the Penny Arcade dickwolves controversy. The PA fellows made a comic which mentioned the word “rape”, some readers got offended, and the PA guys, being thick-skinned individuals, dismissed and mocked their claims of being offended by making “dickwolves” T-shirts. Hubbub ensues.
What’s most interesting about this case is that, apart from perhaps some bloggers, many of the people taking offense appear to be rape survivors for whom reading the word “rape” is traumatic (I guess? This is what I gathered, but being thick-skinned and not a rape survivor it is impossible for me to understand). I don’t think it’s possible to claim Machiavellian maneuverings here, given that a feminist blog who made a dickwolves protest shirt eventually stopped selling the shirt on account of some rape survivors saying that the shirt acted as a trigger for them.
More to the point: there is apparently a small population for whom using the word “rape” causes psychic horror. So what, are we now not allowed to ever use that word? Or can we not even allude to the act? Of course, reasonable concessions should be made (i.e. not using the word when directly in the presence of such a person), but at what point do sensitive individuals need to take it upon themselves to relocate their attention elsewhere?
I think that the mechanism for rape trauma triggers is different from the mechanism for Muhammed representation offense taking, and so the two should probably be treated differently. The trouble with the Dickwolves controversy is that you wound up with offense-takers and trauma-havers on the same side, in the same camp, so they got conflated.
Hmm, but it does seem like trauma triggers and the psychic-distress-via-salmon work via the same mechanism. So probably the key here is to distinguish between actual psychic stress and feigned stress used for status maneuvers. It is not, however, clear to me how to do that in general.
No, the key here is to distinguish between actual psychic stress not used for status maneuvers and actual psychic stress used for status maneuvers. Which is of course even harder.
How about the classic “murder pill” test? If you could self-modify to no longer experience the psychic stress, would you?
I suspect the psychic-distress-via-salmon and rape victims would answer yes, whereas the Muslims would answer no.
I tentatively agree, except I think rape victims might be concerned about no longer holding their beliefs about the moral significance of how people in general talk about triggering topics. If those values could be maintained without the stress reaction I would expect them to want the pill.
Yes, I think it’s a crucial distinction that the brits in question would almost all choose to have the electrodes removed immediately. And shortly they would take considerably less offense at pictures of salmon.
Far fewer of the offended muslims (it’s not the case that all muslims are equally offended) would immediately choose to rewire their brains or rewrite their software to avoid the psychic pain. This is because their current configuration was chosen, to a far greater extent than the brit’s was.
This is an important point. In this sense, the Brits are victims of something they can’t control, but if the Muslims had a choice, they wouldn’t control it. So they bear some responsibility for their own offense.
It really is a Gandhi and the murder pill scenario—the training which made them offended by pictures of Mohammed is the same training which makes them not want the vulnerability to offense removed.
I’ve got a mild discomfort with Christianity. It’s not the result of personal experience with anti-Semitism or having to deal with obnoxious Christians. It’s actually a bit embarrassing to have the discomfort, when there are so many people who have good personal reasons to dislike the religion.
Born to Kvetch is a book about Yiddish and the culture it’s part of. There’s a chapter about detestation of Christianity—I don’t have as strong a flavor, but I bet I inherited the way I feel. [1]
The thing is, I suspect that the way I feel about Christianity doesn’t actually serve me, but it’s hard for me to really think about it because the idea of giving it up triggers the idea of not being uncomfortable with (ick!) Christianity.
[1] I believe that a lot of emotional reactions are learned by imitation of emotional reactions.
I think the point is that people shouldn’t use it as a joke so much.
This only makes sense if you consider jokes to be of lesser social importance than, say, idle political talk.