''the problem comes in when the presumption is made that the local issue is global, which it often is not.''
Agreed. One great example of this is the ''only white people can be racist'' thing. the first reason this annoys me is of course that it's not true. The second reason it annoys me is that they refuse to acknowledge that it isn't true. They actually firmly believe that the definition of racism is what racism is in he United States. It's true that white people aren't often subjected to racism by people of color. But how about states where white people aren't in charge, and POC marginalize other POC? Or white people who supress other white people of another ethnicity? By saying that only white people can be racist, they are ignoring the suffering of thousands and thousands of people. In this area, I think they need some serious lecturing about US-centrism.
This is exactly why much of my post on the white, western, “first world” issues include phrases such as “in most of the white western world”.
Most of the inequalities we face as inhabitants of this planet are dependent on the very specific cultural backdrop it happens in.
There’s a lot of overlap, but nearly everything has an exception. Presuming that the way it works where we are is the way it works everywhere is practically always faulty at best.
On US-centrism:
You can’t blame American people for discussing American issues. The thing is that since English is an international language, anyone who knows it can join in, and I think they sometimes forget that. The US bloggers need to remember that people from other countries might have different experiences than them, and the non-US bloggers need to remember that the US bloggers write from their own experience and probably aren’t aware that they’re generalizing.
No one is blaming americans for discussing local issues, the problem comes in when the presumption is made that the local issue is global, which it often is not.
Possible triggers for racial discussion and historical appropriation.
I find so much of the discussion on class and race (and a whole lot of other things, but especially those) here to be United States - centric. I understand that people are talking about where they're coming from, but I wish that there was more of an acknowledgement that being from the US is a privilege. We learn about US culture in schools, your history in our history classes. Your films and television shows REDEFINE our history to make the good bits your own. We see your stories on television every night of the week. Teenagers read more about your school system than anyone else's. Many discussions in English on message boards are US-unless-stated-otherwise.
It pisses me off, especially when discussions about "minorities" or "People of Color" come in, because it is assumed that all minorities are the same as US minorities, all People of Colour have the same experience as US POC.
UScentricism is a privilege, please acknowledge it.
- SidheBoy, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Congratulations. You're capable of feeling rage!
Getting so angry you want to punch somebody isn't the same as getting triggered. People respond to just getting angry in different ways. If racism makes you rage, then say that. But it is NOT the same as getting triggered, and saying that getting blind with rage is the same as feeling the trauma from an event again and having a total nervous breakdown is really fucking disrespectful to people who actually do have PTSD and really do get triggered. Having anger management issues is in no way the same as what a person with PTSD feels.
Also, even if being at the receiving end of racial slurs *did* trigger you, being bombarded with slurs is in no way the same things as discussing racism. You aren't triggered by discussions of racism. Yet, you insist that trigger warnings are used for these discussions. That's misusing trigger warnings. Using them on something that isn't triggering (like a mere discussion of racism) is abusing them.
I would go un-anon, but I'm one of those 100+ people who you've placed on your block lists, so my un-anon asks wouldn't show up anyway.
Anonymous
Dan/Moononwaters: I’m really having it up to here with anons trolling the asks. Because of the new private messaging feature, I’ll be taking Anon off AskFYPDP. You were most likely blocked for being a douchebag, which is apparent.
The thing is, I have been diagnosed with PTSD. And I did have PTSD. Just because I don’t go into every minutiae of detail about my diagnosis doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Dear anon: Making you angry and "seeing red" are two different things. Do the Matrix movies make you so furious that you feel like you'll lose control of your actions? Does the thought of them make you so angry that you physically shake and it effects you physically?
Or do they just annoy you?
Dan/Moononwaters: Thank you. Seeing red is a turn of phrase that I use to describe how I react when triggered. I have two default situations when triggered: fists flying, or go numb to prevent further abuse. Both are my mechanisms to try and stop and prevent further emotional damage. There is usually a very narrow time frame where I can tell myself “Dan you’re going to be triggered”, and walk away to take control.
Also, "seeing red" and being triggered are totally different, and is flat-out demeaning to people who actually get triggered by (as in get panic attacks, flashbacks, etc) certain things. The sequels to the Matrix movies piss me off because they were awful. They make me see red. But they're not triggering. They just make me angry. Equating something like simply getting angry or frustrated with having a goddamn panic attack due to PTSD is a seriously bad case of ableist appropriation. Check your privilege, Dan.
Anonymous
Dan/Moononwaters: People experience triggering in a variety of different ways. Trying to school me on something that I deal with daily is rather lulzy, as is hiding behind anon.
So people simply talking about racism or the issues transgender people face isn't triggering to you, but being bombarded with slurs directed towards you is triggering?
Then why do people need to use trigger warnings for things that merely discuss racism and discrimination against trans people?
Anonymous
Okay different mod here.
I personally can be triggered by discussions of the issues that transgender people face not just slurs, so it is pertinent for me at least to have a warning. With regards to your other ask, I can’t speak for Dan/Moononwaters or what they mean with their phrasing, but when I say triggered I mean panic attacks and the like.
And with regards to being only triggered by slurs, some people may have one word or set of words that trigger them while others don’t. It’s not that uncommon for people who have been oppressed with a specific slur to react to it but be able to talk about things related to the slur. Being “bombarded with slurs” is much different from having a discussion about issues people of different oppressions may face, and as such people can have different reactions to both.
-Haven/Kantala
If you're triggered by racism, how can you spend your days pretty much talking about racism all the time? Wouldn't you constantly be having panic attacks if you really did have racism-triggered PTSD? (And by racism-triggered, I mean triggered by any discussion of racism, not just racism-motivated violence or crime.)
Anonymous
Dan/Moononwaters: I am triggered by people being racist to me. I can discuss racism and not be triggered, but soon as someone throws some slurs my way I see red.
So how's work at Goldman Sachs?
Seriously though, I don't appreciate your attempt to speak for all those with PTSD. I have PTSD due to a rather traumatic childhood and have to fight back flashbacks and crying fits almost every day. When trigger warnings are used on nearly everything it trivializes them and by proxy, the condition.
Please take your own advice when you consider PTSD and realize that just because you're not offended by it, it doesn't mean other people with the condition aren't either.
In your terms, I felt "erased" when you answered the previous questions regarding trigger warnings.
Thank you for your time.
Anonymous
Moononwaters/Dan: So by using trigger warnings to prevent those with PTSD and traumatic event survivors to not be in a panicked mode, trivializes PTSD and the condition?
okay, i take it that you're not. but the the other parts of my question stand: do you know anyone who is triggered by these things, and how is the overuse of trigger warnings not offensive to those with PTSD?
Dan/Moononwaters: I myself am triggered by transgender and racial things. And it isn’t offensive because people with PTSD (like myself) would probably like a warning that what is going further on may or may not trigger me so please go forward at your own risk. Trigger warnings are not offensive to anyone except those who like to bash it. Like you.
