Stephen Fry Attacks Victims of Child Sex Abuse

[Seth]

Fuck off. Trigger warnings have nothing to do with food.

Of course they do, and that you don't see this is alarming.

[pErvinalia]

A trigger warning is something on text or media.

[Seth]

I am not certain who rEv is telling to 'Fuck off', but does it fit under the 'play nice' rule? I would have avoided saying such to him because of my understanding of that rule.

Well, precedentially "fuck off" is not a personal insult but could fall under the "play nice" rule but has not been traditionally sanctioned as such. Who knows what the rule is now...

[Seth]

A trigger warning is something on text or media.

No shit, Sherlock.

Ever hear of "advertising?"

[pErvinalia]

I am not certain who rEv is telling to 'Fuck off', but does it fit under the 'play nice' rule? I would have avoided saying such to him because of my understanding of that rule.

Well, precedentially "fuck off" is not a personal insult but could fall under the "play nice" rule but has not been traditionally sanctioned as such. Who knows what the rule is now...

Don't deny him Seth.

[pErvinalia]

A trigger warning is something on text or media.

No shit, Sherlock.

Ever hear of "advertising?"

You said (paraphrasing) 'food on shelves'. Sherlock.

[Seth]

A trigger warning is something on text or media.

No shit, Sherlock.

Ever hear of "advertising?"

You said (paraphrasing) 'food on shelves'. Sherlock.

Ever read a cigarette package? Ever note that some products cannot be marketed to "children."

Ever hear Michelle Obama rant and rave about the evils of processed food as she spearheads regulations to put nothing but entirely unpalatable food on the plates of poor children in public schools and ban fund-raising school bake sales?

Ever hear about the New York City attempt to prohibit "large-size sugary soft drinks" spearheaded by Bloomberg?

The examples of Marxist Progressive liberal fascist interference in the food markets are simply too numerous to bear repeating.

If government mandates for cancer warnings on cigarettes, calorie counts on restaurant and fast-food menus and nutritional information on food packaging ain't "trigger warnings" I don't know what is.

[pErvinalia]

A trigger warning is something on text or media.

No shit, Sherlock.

Ever hear of "advertising?"

You said (paraphrasing) 'food on shelves'. Sherlock.

Ever read a cigarette package? Ever note that some products cannot be marketed to "children."

What the fuck?!? So now your argument is that kids can't smoke cigarettes?! And even if this wasn't a retarded point, "Not For Sale To Children" isn't a trigger warning. And even if that wasn't a retarded argument it's not the "trigger warning" that is stopping it being sold to the kids. It's the fucking law.

Ever hear Michelle Obama rant and rave about the evils of processed food as she spearheads regulations to put nothing but entirely unpalatable food on the plates of poor children in public schools and ban fund-raising school bake sales?

Ever hear about the New York City attempt to prohibit "large-size sugary soft drinks" spearheaded by Bloomberg?

The examples of Marxist Progressive liberal fascist interference in the food markets are simply too numerous to bear repeating.

This shit has nothing whatsoever to do with trigger warnings.

[Seth]

A trigger warning is something on text or media.

No shit, Sherlock.

Ever hear of "advertising?"

You said (paraphrasing) 'food on shelves'. Sherlock.

Ever read a cigarette package? Ever note that some products cannot be marketed to "children."

What the fuck?!? So now your argument is that kids can't smoke cigarettes?! And even if this wasn't a retarded point, "Not For Sale To Children" isn't a trigger warning. And even if that wasn't a retarded argument it's not the "trigger warning" that is stopping it being sold to the kids. It's the fucking law.

I didn't say the trigger warning involved was a proscription against selling to children. The trigger warning is the Surgeon General's warning that cigarettes cause cancer. Duh.

And it's not about "the law" prohibiting the SALE of certain items to children, it's about the government mandate that prohibits the MARKETING (ie: free speech by product marketers) such items in a manner that THE GOVERNMENT thinks makes it "too attractive" to children.

Ever hear Michelle Obama rant and rave about the evils of processed food as she spearheads regulations to put nothing but entirely unpalatable food on the plates of poor children in public schools and ban fund-raising school bake sales?

Ever hear about the New York City attempt to prohibit "large-size sugary soft drinks" spearheaded by Bloomberg?

The examples of Marxist Progressive liberal fascist interference in the food markets are simply too numerous to bear repeating.

This shit has nothing whatsoever to do with trigger warnings.

Sure it does. Such government mandates and regulations are codifications of the concept of "trigger warnings" which is based on the false premise that marketing must be controlled by government because to not impose such regulations may result in some fatty-fat-fat picking up a bag of chocolate mini-donuts and eating them before he gets to his car outside the store merely because donut makers advertise and market their product in a manner that "triggers" fat people to consume food that isn't good for them.

It's government nannyism at its worst because it says (which is actually a Progressive platform plank) that consumers are too stupid to know what's good for them and because marketers "take advantage" of this supposed stupidity to deliberately "trigger" buying and consumption of things that are bad for the consumer, so the government must step in and make sure that advertising and marketing cannot "trigger" bad food consumption choices by regulating and banning certain "triggers" that the government wishes to suppress.

That's government codifying "trigger warnings" into law by prohibiting the actual potentially "offensive" (to government) speech that the "trigger warning" is intended to warn potential victims of.

It's exactly the same thing as a university cancelling a speech by a conservative speaker because his giving the speech might "trigger" unpleasant emotions in liberal fascist students. Instead of just "warning" such students that they might be offended by a conservative speaker's opinions, which is offensive enough in its own right because it is the government acting unconstitutionally based on the content of speech, which is prohibited, it's actual censoring of the speech by canceling the event entirely.

Thus, the "trigger warning" becomes government censorship of speech in a heartbeat when government agents illegally act to "protect" the delicate sensibilities of liberal fascist college students, which is exactly the same thing as the government regulating advertising speech to protect the fat people of the country (or the smokers) from some message the government thinks might "trigger" them into unacceptable social behavior, like smoking or eating too much.

You should try to think more deeply about the subject rather than just making superficial arguments.

[Cunt]

If government mandates for cancer warnings on cigarettes, calorie counts on restaurant and fast-food menus and nutritional information on food packaging ain't "trigger warnings" I don't know what is.

Fuck government, but I certainly want calorie information readily available on food. Of course chain restaurants make it available, a few clicks deep on their website usually, but I think it should be right there with the price.

Most people don't know what they are eating, calorie-wise. This contributes to one of the 'biggest' (lol) problems facing the modern world. It isn't much to ask.

Look at how industry has avoided making nutrition labels clear. Of course you can calculate .35 of a can of peaches, to eat a serving (the nutritional info for such is on the label) but I think they should be forced to also put the total package calorie value right where it can be seen.

I am not lobbying government to do it, but I told Robyn (a local 'chef') that the reason why I hadn't been into his establishment wasn't because his burgers (including a delicious peanut-butter burger, and a burger with grilled cheese sandwiches for buns) were high-calorie, but because I didn't know how many were in it.

He won't change, so I won't be back. I told a couple other restaurant owners the same. One has changed her business to work with a gym, and delivers prepared meals with clear calorie information on them. 1 win out of three aint bad. I don't use her service, but look for and find ways to support her business anyway.

Why would it be arduous to make industry be a bit clearer about what is in our food? Do you prefer that we keep making our populations fatter and fatter until the stupid ones die of fat?

[Seth]

If government mandates for cancer warnings on cigarettes, calorie counts on restaurant and fast-food menus and nutritional information on food packaging ain't "trigger warnings" I don't know what is.

Fuck government, but I certainly want calorie information readily available on food. Of course chain restaurants make it available, a few clicks deep on their website usually, but I think it should be right there with the price.

So do I, but not by government mandate, but by the actions of the free market inducing them to do so to satisfy customer demand and thus sell more product by catering to the desires of their customers.

Most people don't know what they are eating, calorie-wise. This contributes to one of the 'biggest' (lol) problems facing the modern world. It isn't much to ask.

No, it's not, but it is too much to allow government to interfere in that relationship by making it mandatory, which is uncalled for and, in my opinion, entirely unconstitutional. If a company doesn't want to tell you how many calories your chocolate mini-donuts have and you want to know that, then don't buy their donuts, buy donuts from a company that VOLUNTARILY discloses that information. Authorizing the government to regulate as a matter of your personal desires or convenience is improper.

Look at how industry has avoided making nutrition labels clear.

And had a good reason to do so.

Of course you can calculate .35 of a can of peaches, to eat a serving (the nutritional info for such is on the label) but I think they should be forced to also put the total package calorie value right where it can be seen.

"Forced." See, you've just ratified government regulation of "trigger warnings" not because you're too stupid to do the math, but because you want government to mandate that producers do it for your personal convenience and to the detriment of the producer, who may wish NOT to disclose calorie counts because he wants you to buy more chocolate mini-donuts and knows that if you don't understand how many calories you're consuming you're more likely to buy more donuts.

I am not lobbying government to do it, but I told Robyn (a local 'chef') that the reason why I hadn't been into his establishment wasn't because his burgers (including a delicious peanut-butter burger, and a burger with grilled cheese sandwiches for buns) were high-calorie, but because I didn't know how many were in it.

He won't change, so I won't be back. I told a couple other restaurant owners the same. One has changed her business to work with a gym, and delivers prepared meals with clear calorie information on them. 1 win out of three aint bad. I don't use her service, but look for and find ways to support her business anyway.

And that's how it should be, voluntary action on the part of both producer and consumer, not government interference in the marketplace.

Why would it be arduous to make industry be a bit clearer about what is in our food? Do you prefer that we keep making our populations fatter and fatter until the stupid ones die of fat?

Because if you knew what's in your food and what the calorie count of that peanut-butter burger was you would be less likely to buy it, that's why. Food producers and restaurants are in the business of selling you food, not being your mommy and not controlling what you eat. That's your lookout.

[pErvinalia]

@Seth, again, trigger warnings are for text, speech and media. It has fuck all to do with food or cigarettes, full stop. You're just babbling for the sake of avoiding admitting you were wrong. Trigger warnings don't stop anyone from accessing something. As I said in the thread about PCism, this ranting is just an excuse for liberals and libertarians to paint themselves as the victim. It's pathetic.

Over and out.

[Cunt]

Seth, do you think you would eat the way you do (when overeating, I mean) if you counted everything? (this presupposes a knowledge of your TDEE)

I have theorized that if someone simply tracked their calorie intake - not tried to restrict it, but simply was aware of everything, that the right choices would be made more often.

[devogue]

@Seth, again, trigger warnings are for text, speech and media. It has fuck all to do with food or cigarettes, full stop. You're just babbling for the sake of avoiding admitting you were wrong. Trigger warnings don't stop anyone from accessing something. As I said in the thread about PCism, this ranting is just an excuse for liberals and libertarians to paint themselves as the victim. It's pathetic.

Over and out.

What if someone has been violated with a pineapple shoved up their arse?

Even seeing Spongebob's house could trigger them.

[Seth]

@Seth, again, trigger warnings are for text, speech and media. It has fuck all to do with food or cigarettes, full stop. You're just babbling for the sake of avoiding admitting you were wrong. Trigger warnings don't stop anyone from accessing something. As I said in the thread about PCism, this ranting is just an excuse for liberals and libertarians to paint themselves as the victim. It's pathetic.

Over and out.

"Trigger warnings" have the purpose of analyzing the content of speech, text or media and determining, according to someone's opinion, that this or that expression of free speech may "trigger" unpleasant thoughts or feelings in some individual or group of individuals, and therefore, as the theory goes, the producers of that expression should be required to provide such warnings to potential consumers of the expression in order that nothing that could possibly be offensive to anyone can be expressed without first warning everyone of the potential of offensiveness. The end result is that there is always somebody in any audience who might be "triggered" over something someone says, which means nobody can freely say anything without being accused of "microaggressing" someone by bruising their tender sensibilities.

When performed voluntarily by the creator of the expression there is nothing wrong with doing so if that's what the creator wishes to do.

However, when either demands or complaints are made by those who neither create nor express the material that the potential for offense to some particular (usually self-serving) group be provided against the will of the content creators, this is the first step towards government-enforced censorship of politically or ideologically disfavored content.

While trigger warnings in and of themselves do not prevent anyone from accessing content, the process by which they come about and the purpose for which they are intended and usually turned to are very often expanded to turn them from "trigger warnings" into something more nefarious, and that is covert or overt censorship of unpopular opinion. We see this occurring already in universities all over the US where, as I described before, the mere potential of "triggering" some unpleasant thought or emotion in particularly bigoted or idiotic students is used as justification for entirely censoring the speech of, in most cases, politically right content providers. As I said, speeches by conservatives scheduled by conservative student groups, who have every right to sponsor such presentations, have been flatly cancelled by university authorities because it is alleged that the content of the speech might "trigger", which is to say offend, members of the student body who hold different political opinions. That's outright government content-based censorship.

This sort of censorship and suppression of unpopular opinion is the direct result of the "trigger warning" cultural Marxism movement whose entire purpose has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone from being "triggered," but rather it's merely a classic Marxist Alinsky "Rule for Radicals" tactic of creating a purported pool of "victims" who must not be alarmed or upset by non-Marxist, non-leftist speech and expression (like Donald Trump speeches), which is then continuously expanded into actual obstruction and suppression of speech by fascistic cultural Marxists, whether by riotous conduct and physical disruption of events, as has happened quite recently at conservative-student sponsored events at several universities where physical disruption, verbal harassment and shouting-down of the speech of conservatives has succeeded in preventing the lawful assembly of conservative students.

The issue is not trigger warnings per se, it's the danger posed by accepting and allowing a culture in which "trigger warnings" are acknowledged as a valid concern, much less demanded as a matter of prior restraint on free speech. Once such a culture becomes acceptable, speech and expression quickly become subservient to the desires of panty-waist fuckwits and their tender sensibilities, as we see happening right this very moment all over the US. Fuck that.

"You can't say that, you didn't warn me you were going to say that and I'm offended and upset by your saying it, so I'm going to complain to the administration that you have harassed and microaggressed me and should be expelled from campus." That has actually happened, by the way, with the "offender" actually being expelled for expressing an opinion antithetical to the "goals and values of the university."

In the US the only "trigger warning" anyone gets or is entitled to get is "You are in the United States of America, where free, unfettered and often disturbing speech and expression are vigorously and constitutionally protected and where you are certain to be exposed to speech and expression that might disturb or alarm you. So suck it up, buttercup and quitcherbitchen, this is the US of A."

Our entire nation is a "free speech zone" and the First Amendment is our universal and only "trigger warning." If you don't like it, get the FUCK out of the United States of America.