Protecting people's feelings

I've been seeing this article linked and liked by a few of my friends on Facebook recently, and I gotta say it's been disappointing. The writer holds the perfectly understandable opinion that some folks are too sensitive, which is true, but then goes on to equate things like trigger warnings or student unions not wanting "Blurred Lines" played at colleges to literally burning books Fahrenheit 451 style. The writer is guilty of the same things he accuses others of, and is wrong to boot. I will tell you how.

First, he equates distaste for censorship, he equates Jezebel writing a negative article about a Nazi  romance novel with incinerating all copies of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" to keep people from being offended. He seems to think trigger warnings are the same thing as government restricting speech, and, revealingly, he seems to think it is a massive injustice when organizations choose not to let pick up artist fucks or ridiculous conservatives speak on their grounds. An organization choosing not to give someone a platform is not censorship, particularly in the cases of colleges where the student body overwhelmingly opposes it.
An argument could be made that the Australian government overstepped by not permitting some PUA fucks entrance visas though, I admit to not having any sympathy for them, but I do also admit to it being slightly uncomfortable legally, possibly, I am not an expert.

A couple valid points are brought up, mostly various cases of parents or conservative groups protesting books with so called "graphic" content being included in high school or college reading lists, these are ridiculous complaints yes, and giving into them is precisely a problem that should be addressed, but he is lumping every complaint or concern into the exact same territory.

The author goes on the say the real problem is those people who are offended, and that they just need to "decide not to be offended" that's a direct quote by the way. He is showing his privilege here in the worst way.

Let's talk about trigger warnings a minute, since I keep using the term, simply put they are similar to the MPAA ratings you get before movies, but used on any content, people who are concerned about folks suffering from PTSD or similar issues who might get "triggered" by the content put a quick warning before the content to let prospective consumers know that it contains, say, rape, or graphic violence, something along those lines.

There is a trend among internet weirdos that has leaked a bit into real life of overusing trigger warnings, with such warnings as 'Christians", or "Bread". These are dumb and should be rightly mocked, but for someone suffering from sexual assault related PTSD, a trigger warning at the beginning of a story that contains graphic descriptions of rape might be appreciated, just as a combat veteran might appreciate knowing that the movie they are about see has realistic war scenes.

And here's the thing, even the stupidest trigger warning isn't actually hurting anyone, being annoying and silly? Sure, but hurting or preventing the content from being consumed? No, not at all.

Our strong, non-triggered writer here is arguing for the removal of something that offends him, despite it being harmless, sound like a familiar complaint? It should because that is basically the thesis of the article.

He is like so many others who would rather tell people they shouldn't be offended rather than choose the much simpler option of simply not giving offense in the first place. A quick glance at the information available shows me that he is a thirty something white guy living in Austin, he is an "editor-at-large" whatever that means, and a published author, based on these things I would guess he has been living life on the lowest difficulty setting, has encountered very little in the way of obstacles or trauma, and can't comprehend how anyone else might actually have a problem with him, or indeed with the culture that has treated him so well his entire life.

He puts out this think-piece about how being nice is bad because he doesn't want to face the reality that the culture that has supported him so well doesn't do so for everyone, because if he accepts that, he also must confront the idea that he has been unfairly given his spot in society at the cost of others, and he might then need to confront his privilege, much simpler to accuse society of being week, or better yet, of being censorious, rather than simply moderate language and emphasize with people dealing with trauma.

"Decide not to be offended" my white liberal ass.