350
Republicans baffled by Katie Britt’s State of the Union response: ‘One of our biggest disasters’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
350 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2285 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Gotcha.
I didn’t have that experience in school (albeit that was 10 years ago) and the only places I’ve seen TWs is the internet.
So maybe it’s a situation of time and place when it is and isn’t effective. But in a case where there’s no opportunity to abstain, then I agree with you that it’s merely a forewarning and largely useless aside from keeping the topic from causing a bit of whiplash.
Take your train of thought one step further. Because there is no actual tangible benefit to be gained, it means there is no practical difference between a trigger warning and a basic content label. Treating them as anything more is simply glorifying a label.
To be clear, I conditionally agree with you based on the context and setting where it’s used. But, that’s what they are. Content labels. And a content label (ostensibly) should allow you to decide in advance if you want to consume the content. If you don’t have a choice in the matter, what’s the point?
We’ve been rating movies for forever for this exact reason. To give people information to decide if they want to consume the content considering the violence, sexual content, language, drug use, etc.
In the case of trigger warnings, they’re intended to say ‘this content is potentially triggering for some people due to this particular topic’ (SA, eating disorders, drug use, etc., all have vulnerable people who can be genuinely triggered by reading content about it, especially if it’s in detail). And having the opportunity to not consume that content rather than be slapped in the face with it is a mental health save. It has value in that context, which you even described in your own comment. You sometimes like them, and that’s when I’m saying they have value as trigger warnings specifically.
I didn’t think I was being unclear and I’m sorry if I was, but we seem to agree here. You just appear to be saying ‘all trigger warnings are dumb and don’t help with mental health’ while going on to describe how they (sometimes) help with mental health.