I apologize.....poster did not call the Governors "stupid".....he referred to them as "dopes"

so individuals should have no voice in government?

Will there be a new dictionary?
 

Without the words plantation, antebellum, carpet ******?

Lack of reading comprehension

+

Need to "fire back"

+

Lack of information

=

Do you actually re read before you hit SUBMIT ?

Did you honestly believe the poster meant this ?

I have done some due diligence on the subject of micro aggression and trigger warnings.

Lets start with micro aggression:

You and I could have some fun with this one... I read several articles regarding this theory for the most part I have been cracking up ever since. While this theory was first described in the early 1970's but it really didn't come up until a group students at UCLA declared the campus to be a hostile atmosphere. When I reviewed the content of a list of these racial slurs it reminded me of the ebonics thing in Berkeley a few years ago. Here are some links to the best comments I was able to find.....

Microaggression and Changing Moral Cultures - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Urban Dictionary: Trigger warning

Not sure how you go into being worried about this but from my research this "movement" is not going all that well.

Take Care.

I am glad you find humor in this subject..this is from your first link...speaking of micro aggression

"The conflict is important because its outcome will determine the fate of higher education. Victimhood culture and its manifestations on campus threaten the goals of the academy. Honest inquiry and communication are bound to offend someone, and, if colleges are to continue, they must have a climate in which people are less — not more — prone to outrage than elsewhere."


The purpose of your second link talking about computer talking is well beyond me and has nothing to do with the concern not even broaches the subject being discussed.

This is from an article in Time Magazine from March of last year...they do not seem to find the humor that you did...

"Here’s what they are: The concept of microaggression has leapt from the shadows of academic writing into the bright light of general conversation, especially in the wake of widely consulted work by professors Derald Wing Sue and Madonna Constantine over the last seven or so years. Microaggressions, as these academics describe them, are quiet, often unintended slights — racist or sexist — that make a person feel underestimated on the basis of their color or gender."

They wrap this article up with....

"However, there is something equally counterproductive about the microaggression concept, at least as it is currently being put forth. The scholars promoting this concept claim that it is a microaggression even when someone says “I don’t see you as black,” or claims to be colorblind, or purports not to be a sexist, or in general doesn’t “acknowledge” one’s race membership or gender.

But let’s face it — it’s considered racist for whites to treat any trait as “black.” If we accept that, then we can’t turn around and say they’re racists to look at black people as just people. That particular aspect of the microaggression notion seems fixed so that whites can’t do anything right"


'Microaggression' Is the New Racism on Campus - TIME

AGAIN, the humor you saw in links that do not even apply to the subject being discussed seems to have escaped them.
AGAIN, the humor you saw in links that do not even apply to the subject being discussed seems to have escaped them.

I am sure you have heard of the magazine Psychology Today....I think they ta
am sure you have heard of the magazine Psychology Today....I think they take things seriously.....they took it from the campus where you evidently left it...


"Microaggressions are typically associated with everyday verbal and nonverbal slights, insults and putdowns directed towards socially devalued group members. However, environmental microaggressions can reside in the "climate" of an institution or even in the broader society. For example, when women in the workplace enter a conference room where portraits of all the past male CEOs or board of directors are honorifically displayed, the message given is that women are less competent and that a glass ceiling exists in the company. Over the past few months, similar environmental microaggressions have been communicated via the guise of the debates surrounding federal and state budget woes. In particular, the issue of developing a federal budget was and continues to be complicated by several issues, including America's growing deficit and the proposed tactics for reducing the deficit. Now, this posting is not going to advocate for a particular tactic for reducing America's deficit, but instead will discuss the covert messages communicated by the debate surrounding proposed budget cuts, specifically concerning Planned Parenthood."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-environmental

So it is not even all about race as you presented it. And one thing you were close to correct....it did begin in the 70's but is not as restricted as you see it.

"The term racial microaggressions was first proposed by psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, MD, in the 1970s, but psychologists have significantly amplified the concept in recent years.
In his landmark work on stereotype threat, for instance, Stanford University psychology professor Claude Steele, PhD, has shown that African-Americans and women perform worse on academic tests when primed with stereotypes about race or gender. Women who were primed with stereotypes about women's poor math performance do worse on math tests. Blacks' intelligence test scores plunge when they're primed with stereotypes about blacks' inferior intelligence.
Meanwhile, social psychologists Jack Dovidio, PhD, of Yale University, and Samuel L. Gaertner, PhD, of the University of Delaware, have demonstrated across several studies that many well-intentioned whites who consciously believe in and profess equality unconsciously act in a racist manner, particularly in ambiguous circumstances. In experimental job interviews, for example, whites tend not to discriminate against black candidates when their qualifications are as strong or as weak as whites'. But when candidates' qualifications are similarly ambiguous, whites tend to favor white over black candidates, the team has found. The team calls this pattern "aversive racism," referring in part to whites' aversion to being seen as prejudiced, given their conscious adherence to egalitarian principles.
Sue adds to these findings by naming, detailing and classifying the actual manifestations of aversive racism. His work illuminates the internal experiences of people affected by microaggressions—a new direction, since past research on prejudice and discrimination has focused on whites' attitudes and behaviors, notes Dovidio.
"The study of microaggressions looks at the impact of these subtle racial expressions from the perspective of the people being victimized, so it adds to our psychological understanding of the whole process of stigmatization and bias," Dovidio says.
Research shows that uncertainty is very distressing to people, Dovidio adds. "It's the uncertainty of microaggressions that can have such a tremendous impact on people of color," including on the job, in academic performance and even in therapy, he and others find.

Unmasking 'racial micro aggressions': Some racism is so subtle that neither victim nor perpetrator may entirely understand what is going on--which may be especially toxic for people of color

So, as always you mock something that is serious which means something but I sure do not get it. Why is everything with you something to mock and make fun of without even understanding what you are talking about.

I hope that my links do not keep you from "cracking up" as you say this subject made you......it is a movement; it is a serious movement; and I find no humor.

Now on Trigger Warnings....I am sorry that the only link you could find was the Urban Dictionary....not sure what that means....but here is some reading and I sure hope I am not being a downer on all the humor you get from this stuff....

From the New York Times...

"Should students about to read “The Great Gatsby” be forewarned about “a variety of scenes that reference gory, abusive and misogynistic violence,” as one Rutgers student proposed? Would any book that addresses racism — like “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” or “Things Fall Apart” — have to be preceded by a note of caution? Do sexual images from Greek mythology need to come with a viewer-beware label?

Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as “trigger warnings,” explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.

The warnings, which have their ideological roots in feminist thought, have gained the most traction at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the student government formally called for them. But there have been similar requests from students at Oberlin College, Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, George Washington University and other schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/us...uirm.html?_r=0

This is from the Boston Globe, and despite you finding all this funny...cracking up is the word...they seem to find it serious enough.

"WARNING: THIS column may contain material you disagree with or find offensive. It may provoke a strong reaction, making you feel angry or exposed. Of course, you can log off or turn the page. But this is the opinion section of a general-interest newspaper. Shouldn’t you expect to find provocative, even threatening ideas? And shouldn’t other readers be able to see this column without a cautionary note that it might do them harm?

Something similar is happening on college campuses, where reasonable concern for students who may have suffered terrible traumas has morphed into a serious threat to intellectual freedom. Increasingly, students are expecting “trigger warnings’’ to be issued before they are asked to read certain texts or view course material that may be troubling. It can be something as raw as a graphic rape scene or a bloody wartime battle, or more conceptual, such as themes of racism or oppression. At some schools, students want to be allowed to skip a class or reading if they fear it will trigger a stressful reaction."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...2I/story.html#

Everything that others say is not fodder for your mocking and making fun. You actually used the URBAN DICTIONARY to say something or other about Trigger Warnings. Sometimes it is nice to have a conversation with an adult who actually is aware of what is going on.

Look obviously this is quite serious to you.....but I found this quote pretty fun

Some colleges have moved toward an institutionalized recognition of micro aggression. The student government of Ithaca College, for example, passed a bill calling for a campus wide online system through which students could anonymously report micro aggressions. The University of California system has issued guidelines for faculty members warning that statements such as "America is a melting pot" or "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" could be micro aggressions.

In response to that document, the UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote, "Well, I’m happy to say that I’m just going to keep on microaggressing." Clearly not everyone is on board with these kinds of policies. From the Chronicle of Higher Education....

How in the H*LL can "I believe the most qualified should get the job" be a micro aggression? It's just plain stupid.

Don't know why you are so fired up about it but you are.... You asked me to look into this, which I very diligently did. I just don't share your passion....

Yours is probably the most sensible post on here!
I can understand the trigger warnings but seriously doubt if they would be hoked onto well known pieces of literature. Before graphic films, yes, but not literature.
Micro-aggressions are a new one to me. I really doubt if those are taken seriously in college and certainly not in lower grades in school.

I am the OP on this thread and the reason I referenced "trigger warnings" and "micro aggressions" in my original post was because it clearly illustrated a phrase I define in such actions. People serious about and experiencing trigger warning and micro-aggressions are what I refer to as"intellecutalizing themselves into stupidity". It is circular thinking at best and a serious emotional issue at its worse. And the one thing they all have in common is "self" Its all about them

What intelligent person goes through his or her life viewing everything and anything as having some intentional slight. It borders on paranoia and thus you are never going to have a cogent discussion with such a person.

So the next time one of you find your instant reaction, in a discussion, to be he is a racist, a bigot, a homophobic you may want to re-examine why you pulled the trigger so quickly on your opinion and consider that the speaker is referencing something else entirely.

Personal Bet Regards:

I happen to agree with the OP that this is a very disturbing trend and how anyone as the one posters insists finds this funny escapes me.

Thomas Sowell, just a few weeks ago said this about micro aggression...

"Word games are just one of the ways of silencing politically incorrect ideas, instead of debating them. Demands that various conservative organizations be forced to reveal the names of their donors are another way of silencing ideas by intimidating people who facilitate the spread of those ideas. Whatever the rationale for wanting those names, the implicit threat is retaliation.

This same tactic was used, decades ago, by Southern segregationists who tried to force black civil rights organizations to reveal the names of their donors, in a situation where retaliation might have included violence as well as economic losses.

In a sense, the political left’s attempts to silence ideas they cannot, or will not, debate are a confession of intellectual bankruptcy. But this is just one of the left’s ever-increasing restrictions on other people’s freedom to live their lives as they see fit, rather than as their betters tell them.

- See more at: Thomas Sowell: 'Micro-aggression' is micro-totalitarianism | New Hampshire

While some find it funny, I find it a bit unnerving that something like this has gained such momentum.

From JULY 9, 2015

Microaggression and Changing Moral Cultures - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education

FROM JULY 10, 2015

University of California System Stirs Up 'Microaggression' Debate, but is it Too Much? : News : University Herald

From June 30, 2015

Wisconsin university dubs 'America is a melting pot' a racial microaggression - The College Fix

To those who feel this is a non serious and even fun thing, I do not know what to say.

The fireman in MN had absolutely no right to fly a Confederate flag on what the OP calls "his fire engine". The choice to put that flag on the truck at this time is a very very clear political statement supporting that flag. I don't think he was just supporting the Dukes of Hazzard, but it does not matter what I think.

The truck is not his personal billboard. The truck belongs to the government and is absolutely not "his fire engine" If the fireman had instead chosen to fly the hammer and sickle flag of the old USSR would that have been ok? If he had chosen to fly the rainbow flag of the gay right's movement, would that have been ok? He can do what he wants on his own car, and take the flak he gets for his decision as a private person. But he has no "freedom" to use the government's vehicle for his personal speech. That he even for one moment thought that adding the KKK's favorite flag to fly alongside the US Flag makes me seriously question this person's wisdom.

...

The title of this thread has intrigued me: "The Assaults on Freedoms by Progressives".

Don't they realize that "progressive" means to go forward?:22yikes:

The opposite of "progressive" is "REGRESSIVE".

Would you rather be identified as a Progressive or a Regressive?

Really only those two choices?
I think not. Maybe for those who have a preconceived notion that a position must be one or it is the other. Most issues in life are not that simple.

And the sadditional notion that one is better than the opposite is also agenda convenience and nothing more.

For example where would the status quo fit in/ Well it doesn't if one limits the choices to only two.

The problem of today is just that; some folks just do not take the time or some are not capable of or just do not want to think beyond what they feel is convenient or obvious. Because it is easy and does not require much if any thought processing.

The classic used in open thinking classes? How many uses are there for burned out light bulbs? A rule of the session is no laughing or ridculing any suggestions (which is a matter of course for some here). The objective is to determine how many uses there are. To help some out here is a short list of 20:

20 Brilliant Ways to Repurpose Lightbulbs | Brit + Co

The notion of being limited to a concept of being ONLY one or another is just not reality.....no matter how it is presented or stated.

Given the choice between just two radical views, and no others ?

For me, that is easy...regressive. And that term does not apply, but as usual, as this thread points out, control of the conversation becomes vital to progressives. Either stifle conversation on certain subjects because THEY find it offensive, or choose the choices. They want racial discourse, but they pick the manner, otherwise you are a racist. They want illegal immigration discussions, but they pick what you shouldn't say or you are a bigot.

And you do understand, with your question you totally ignore anyone who does not go to the extreme, and in doing so, really point out the problem.

There are some who find it cute to use "regressive" in posts, but they do so to mock, AND to stifle any real conversation, which was the premise of the OP.

Really...only two choices...progressive or regressive..come on

I think there are other choices other than PROGRESSIVE or REGRESSIVE

"“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”

That is Bernie Sanders as quoted jn the NY TIMES today.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/up...abt=0002&abg=1

Well, you can go forward (progress), go backward (regress), or stay put ( status quo).

Which leads somewhere? Which shows gains? The answer is Progress!

If only REAL life was as simple as yours seems to be !

Give everyone a label, and then you define those labels and that is it....pretty simple, hey ?

And which label would you put on yourself? I am proud to be Progressive and looking forward to the future.

The answer is they all do.
Please don't try to convince us the only way forward is being a "progressive" what ever that really means.
Rather try to convince some of us that progress cannot be made by the status quo.
Or that progress cannot be made by going back (which by the way does not AUTOMATICALLY convey a negative...nice try).

We fully understand your world and it's drivers (that allow you what to say or not say) are not proponents of any other opinion/position/status than theirs is strictly forbidden and shall be challenged no matter how stupid the challenge may be.

If you are the status quo just standing still, you will be run over by those going forward. If you are a Regressive, you are stuck in the past and have learned absolutely nothing.

Climb aboard the plane of the future and experience what is waiting for you.

I place no labels on myself or anyone.

BUT, interesting and as you like to say..."fun"....recall on post 46 when your were so enjoying the making fun of me and said it was fun. Well, you used the URBAN DICTIONARY in speaking of trigger warnings......

WELL, here is your URBAN DICTIONARY on PROGRESSIVES......only posting this because you use this source thus trying to be accommodating.....

"Progressive
A term that former liberals co-opted when they discovered that their delusional beliefs didn't fit any recognized definition of the word liberal.

These fools are frequently self-loathing, unsuccessful losers who can only feel better by projecting their failures onto their opponents.

A "Progressive" is identified by the following behaviors/beliefs:

- Knows what is best for everybody else
- Claims to be well-informed even though they get their news/talking points from the Daily KOS and/or MSNBC

- Believes that personal wealth is evil yrt they fawn over wealthy celebrities and limousine liberals

- Believes corporations and profit are evil, and will tweet about this 24/7 on their fancy iPad

- Thinks name-calling and demonizing opponents is the same as debate

- Accuses every person with a dissenting view of being a racist

- Supported Occupy Wall Street from the comfort of their living room, not the rape tent

- Drives a Prius with a COEXIST bumper sticker
- Believes in the rights of everyone, except those who disagree

- Thinks the Constitution is flawed because they can't control all 3 branches of government

- Believes YOUR success could only have come at THEIR expense

- Believes Al Gore is right about global warming, even though his carbon footprint 100X of the average person

- Thinks voter identification is racist, because it discriminates against dead people


They then give an example to finish it off...

"Conservative: I believe in personal responsibility and smaller government

Progressive: You racist hate-monger

Conservative: You said you believed in equal rights for everybody

Progressive: Racist! You should die!"

Urban Dictionary: progressive

Would never access this but thought for you since it is a favorite of yours.

Friend,
I did not write post 46. I did write post 50.
i am sure you can find a real dictionary to tell you what a Progressive means. Look at the lifestyle of Quakers. Study Former VP Wallace.

I APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND ANYONE WHO HAS TO READ THAT !!

I thought I was speaking or posting to the same guy who mocks constantly and used that source earlier. I would NEVER use a source like that and am sorry.

As a serious answer then to your question about how I would label myself.

I truly can see both sides of issues for the most part. I was an active Democrat for years and left the party in the 70's over what I perceived as a wrong concerning minorities and how they were "handling" them.

I probably lean more conservative and much of that is a resistance to the "in your face" progressive movement in the country. I believe the progressive movement is manipulating us and encroaching on all of our liberties. While they like to speak about how empathetic they are, I find except of the idealistic young, to be using minorities in this country to their own benefit.

I think the future which you look forward to is gong to be bleak. For a few reasons. The progressive movement, which is basically socialism, has failed at every turn in every place it ever had a foothold. IT guarantees financial downfall if allowed to go unchecked. To allow unrest in the name of justice is wrong. To tolerate and approve of unrest in the name of justice is wrong. I marched alongside Martin Luther King in 1965 and he would be appalled at that things that are said and done in his name.

I think that progressives are destroying free speech, as I have alluded to in a number of posts. If you want a conversation on an issue, you need two sides. Progressives do not want conversations. The minute you express yours and it differs from theirs, they will brand you in some manner. It may be racist, it may be bigot, it may be stupid, but they will brand you. Progressives do in fact follow strictly the teaching of Saul Alinsky. Although many politicians of all stripes have studied Alinsky, the progressive movement led by a man (our President) who actually TAUGHT Alinsky principles.

Since your question was aimed at me personally, I will share this with you...I opposed President Obama in 2008, but once he was elected, I thought that it was going to be ok, because I felt strongly about many of the same things he did....health care was one of them. After watching his actions leading up to the Affordable Health Care approval I was dismayed. He mocked and ignored the opponents, lied about how he would proceed and smiled about it all smugly while Reid controlled the Senate on his behalf by violating so many rules. He has not changed much. I am not much into the "in your face"...my way or the highway kind of politics.

I also believe that our next President must be someone who will make an effort to be a statesman and reach across the aisle. I know I am anti Clinton because she is a divider in every way. I have no idea which candidate I will vote for as I need to wait until serious questions are asked of the candidates.

Just trying to paint a picture of who I am. On Trump, of course he is brash, naive, and will not get close the nomination BUT he is bringing up things that need to be discussed and of course as I mentioned being called all kind of names based on I have no idea what, but he can take that and does not care. Problem is that the progressive movement cannot be questioned on the things he brings up...but he IS more right than wrong.

I am tired of the pandering and that is what is happening. Those posters who wonder about our President and his stance on the street crimes, etc have very valid points. He has a bias, and to that he is certainly entitled and I think everyone understands that, but his total disregard for Law that he does not agree with is staggering. This country was founded on LAW, and that is our basis for being strong. In the riot cases, and I do not want to re hash all of that, but notice as time goes on, EVERYTHING that was said or implied was a lie. And our government stood and did not back the law, but a constituency instead. THAT bothers me.

So, call me a racist.call me a bigot...whatever but that name calling is not going to change my belief in the basic principles of this country. CHANGE is not always good.....PROGRESSION is not always good and that does not mean that any CHANGE OR PROGRESSION is always bad either.

It always amazes me that the progressive movement always has a need to be right and discussion is tabu. IF that were the case, life would be easy. Everyone vote straight Democratic party because they are right in everything. THAT is not the case, and since it is not, then they need to talk to the other side.

Oh, and one dividing rod always between the labels that you and others prefer is abortion. I am very anti abortion. That does not make me anti women rights, and that is the attitude we all get, which is typical...if you aint with me then you are this or that.....I believe that unborn child has a right to life as well, and believe that this country is basically being torn apart by the breakdown in the traditional family.

Sorry for all of this but feel bad about my link I posted and feel bad I mis read who you were. Sorry for that and sorry for the long rant....I just started to type and will probably regret things I said or didn't say but you get the basic idea and I try to address questions and not simply make smart aleck remarks.

Dear Guest: I am the OP on this thread. I agree with you that progressive means going forward. However that is where our agreement ends.

The facts are that progressives applications policies, etc are intended to eliminate individual and personal freedom and with replace it all with government control.

In the event this is lost on you it means that the war fought by our founding fathers to free us from the grasp of England's monarchy for our individual freedoms, fascist progressive are reversing by supplementing government control. It can also be stated as regressive policies.

The fireman from MN placed that flag on that fire truck as a act of civil disobedience because he recognized that progressive were at work utilizing Alinsky Tactics of dividing people. The purpose of dividing people is the opposite pole of uniting people because united we stand divided we fall.
Blacks exercise civil disobedience and progressives hail them as heroes but some white guy from MN is dealt with severely for his protest for freedoms.

People better wake up or we will soon be calling each other comrade.

Personal Best Regards:

So that is how you do it. Make up definitions you like that make or support your point. Then as quickly as possible crap on everybody who states ANYTHING inconsistent with your made up definitions. You certainly don't need much information doing it that way.

No matter how you choose to do it you do in fact consistently refuse to acknowledge anybody opinionsother than yours.

You are absolutely right in that no movement can be 100% correct. I call myself a Progressive because of the leanings of my church - Quaker. We are an activist people, non-violent but activist. It dates to before the Civil War and then during the Civil War, Quakers helped slaves from the South run away and find new lives in the North or in Canada. During the Vietnam War, Quakers were protestors and were helpful in getting the US out of Vietnam. We did serve when called. I was drafted and went to Vietnam as a medic but never did carry a weapon.

The Urban Dictionary is used for humor, I believe, and to egg others on. I figured you were doing some of that and shrugged it off.

Do not discount the effect that Progressives or Liberals will have on this election. There are many of us out there and we include the factions not normally found in the Republican Party. It is not likely that these factions will join the Republicans and there will be some Republicans coming over to our side when topics such as women's rights and minority rights are discussed more openly.

I apologize totally. If I offended you in anyway, I am sorry. We can disagree but no reason to be rude.

I honestly thought I was posting directly to one of our resident wise kids.

I am sorry

No worries.... I just enjoy the free exchange of ideas and hope to continue that with you in the future.

The OP who tries always to seem so reasonable...

Why is it that you missed the reason the cake couple in Oregon was fined, or to put it differently, lied in your post about the reason if you really did read the ruling? Could you not be properly understanding why the fine was levied? Or do you just like to claim "liberty" and "freedom" are your side of the political fence's words?

Micro aggression and trigger warnings.......cover of Atlantic

How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus - The Atlantic

Sorry, if something offends one person, then it has to go. The new America. There you go, live with it or change it. Time for the majority to have a voice for a change and quit worrying so much about one person being offended. That's how we mature, by living with challenges.

Now, the POW flag is offensive to the pacifists, so they want it destroyed.

In my opinion, there is a difference between good manners and PC. Manners is knowing when not to use offensive language. PC is being afraid to to speak less you offense someone's sensitivities.

My wife wonders why I don't socialize very frequently. It's because I speak my piece, regardless of PC. But, I do have enough manners not to purposely try to offend. I find it offensive that being offensive is permitted for the Hollywood, comedy and musicians, but everyone else has to toe the line when it comes to "offensive" terms. Sorry, but think some folks just have thin skin and need to get a life.

Don't try to teach my grandchildren a new history. Don't teach them that what they learned in church is biased. And don't teach them that being wealthy is bad. And most of all don't teach them that American exceptionalism is evil. We are the best country in the World and no one should apologize for that. NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT.

We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not. Americans do not purposely attempt to hurt those that don't believe as we do, but we should not change our way of life to suit a small group of sensitive folks. If we feel that something is morally unacceptable, who are you to call us bigots. We tolerate something, but may not condone it. That does not make us bigots. Don't try to force us to accept your way or change our way. You accept that we do not agree with you and we are the majority. If you wish conformance, then you conform with the majority, not the other way around. I don't like cabbage but my wife does. She can eat it, but don't try to make me eat it. I don't forbid her from eating it and she doesn't force me to eat it. That way, we both get along. I don't get upset and wreck the house.

Unfortunately the high lighted statement above is no longer tue in America.
is in itself a separate topic for another thread.

I posted #74 about this cover of Atlantic in response to the mocking and derisive tone used about this subject, especially to the OP.

One poster said they looked it up, because They never heard of it, and thought it was "funny".

Because you are not aware of things does not mean they don't exist and does not mean they are funny.

This makes a lot of sense. Before this thread, i had never heard of trigger warnings or micro-aggressions.

I have a friend who had a close call in a house fire several years ago. She now cannot watch a movie that contains scenes of fires. That, like the dislocated shoulder and rape trauma, are forms of PTSD. Basically, the triggers will set off remembered incidents that are too painful to endure.

The micro-aggressions might be hurtful to a few people who have thin skins but are usually not given in a way that was meant to convey belittling another person. Grow up and take it in the spirit of which it was intended.