[ SECRET POST #2693 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2693 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #385.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ], [ 1 - blank image ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: So trigger warnings finally made the New York Times

[dancing_clown]

Maybe try reading the article before making inaccurate claims about a lack of neutrality. Or did you just skip this and what I'm sure are many more paragraphs down the line?

Meredith Raimondo, Oberlin’s associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said the guide was meant to provide suggestions, not to dictate to professors. An associate professor of comparative American studies and a co-chairwoman of the task force, Ms. Raimondo said providing students with warnings would simply be “responsible pedagogical practice.”

“I quite object to the argument of ‘Kids today need to toughen up,’ ” she said. “That absolutely misses the reality that we’re dealing with. We have students coming to us with serious issues, and we need to deal with that respectfully and seriously.”

The very definition of news neutrality means quoting or otherwise acknowledging both sides of an issue.

Re: So trigger warnings finally made the New York Times

[feotakahari]

I read the article from start to finish. I agree with the statement that they presented viewpoints from people who agree with and people who disagree with the policy. I disagree with the statement that the wording used by the author of the article doesn't support one side more than the other. I'm not gonna try to argue precisely which words are or aren't biased or whatnot, because if you actually get into an argument with someone at that level of semantic precision, you will NEVER get them to agree with you.

Edit: And to be clear, I agree that much of what's in the article is ridiculous.

Re: So trigger warnings finally made the New York Times

[dancing_clown]

Ah. So, you don't care if people understand you, only that they agree with you. Got it. Because you were making wild claims that...you pretty much just dismantled with this post, so I don't really know what's going on here anymore.

Re: So trigger warnings finally made the New York Times

[feotakahari]

You've got it backwards--what matters to me more than ANYTHING else is that people understand the meaning of what I'm saying, so that if they disagree with me, they disagree with me, not with a misinterpretation. Which is a problem, because I so often discover after I posted something that seemed perfectly clear to me that other people interpreted it in a way I didn't predict at all. This occasionally happens to me in person, but it never happens quite so dramatically--I can look over a post five times, and edit it twice for wording to make sure it means one thing, and then right after I've posted it, someone responds with something indicating that they interpreted it to mean the exact opposite. The fault must be mine, since this doesn't seem to happen to other folks, but I can never figure out how to prevent it. After a few comments in a row where I got completely misinterpreted, I tend to give up completely and sink into self-condemnation, castigating myself for not being able to communicate clearly enough.

Apparently I was making "wild claims" in an earlier post that I wasn't making in my last post. I'm not exactly certain what those wild claims were--my meaning in my last post was my meaning in the ones before it--but if they weren't what was in my last post, then I assure you that I didn't mean to make them. I know I sound really angry in this post, but I'm just kind of frustrated, and I sincerely apologize if I've caused you some offense.

Edit: Oh God damn it, see what I mean? I'm LITERALLY giving myself a headache trying to figure out how to cut this wall of text down into something more comprehensible to make sure you don't misunderstand me.

Re: So trigger warnings finally made the New York Times

[chardmonster]

It doesn't happen as much in person because in person people, particularly on campus, are under pressure to be polite.

The issue here is that your argument was'nt matching any of your evidence.