Who Are The Real “Victims” Here? On Trigger Warnings, Defensiveness, and Anti-PC Hysteria

Quote:Last night I saw Belladonna of Sadness at Northwest Film Forum in Seattle. The movie is a surreal, psychedelic take on the dynamics of heterosexual eroticism set in medieval France, animated in 1970s Japan. I found a lot to recommend it, as a formally striking film that foregrounds a complex female character and its portrayal of witchcraft as a survival-driven rebellion of a patriarchal order, but due to its frank (albeit highly sympathetic) depiction of coercive sex and outright rape, I can definitely see why some other women might choose to skip it.

(Another case could be made that the intensity of the rape scenes allows male viewers to empathize with the woman whose experience the movie chronicles, feeling a kind of helplessness they might not otherwise have access to, but that’s not the point I’m interested in making here.)

The main thing I want to talk about right now is how judiciously trigger warnings were used before the film. In her brief introduction, Northwest Film Forum director Courtney Sheehan made reference to the erotic complexities of the film. “Are we supposed to be turned on by this? Or horrified? Both are true, at different times.” Her insightful words, along with a brief on-screen introduction from Violet Lucca, digital editor of Film Comment Magazine, gave fair warning of the kind of content we were about to encounter.

As a woman who is lucky enough not to be triggered by much in the way of sexual violence and yet strives to understand the complexities of the experiences of other women and marginalized people, I found these warnings to be highly humane, effective, and welcome. A trigger warning is not the same thing as censorship. On the contrary, the warning made the film accessible to an even broader audience than it might have otherwise been.

In a recent interview with Buzzfeed about her new book ‘Shrill,’ Lindy West said of internet harassment culture, “It’s the same conversation we’re having about political correctness and coddled co-eds.” The world is full of people who, because they are lucky enough not to need them, don’t fully understand the purpose of trigger warnings, but rather than trying to listen to those who do, become outraged and defensive at their mere mention.

The anti-PC hysteria in the US today is coming from a place of intense emotion, not the “reason” it claims to deify. It is coming from a place of wanting to shut down conversations, not the “free speech” it hypocritically touts. We can speculate forever about what motivates people to fall in line with avowed racists and misogynists like Donald Trump and cultural currents like GamerGate, but I would submit that the motivation for this defensiveness, at its core, is sheer, unadulterated terror. Even the slightest glimpse of the terror that many women face every day is intolerable because it is so much more horrifying than anything most of us would prefer to imagine, given the ability to opt out. (This ability to opt out is known in social justice parlance as “privilege,” but for reasons related to the impulse to opt-out in the first place, that word is highly triggering to many who possess it.)

Our culture despises anything we perceive of as “vulnerability,” “weakness” and “victimhood” because we categorize these experiences as “feminine,” but where is the true weakness here? On the part of survivors and feminists developing tools to help everyone navigate the world with more openness, curiosity and understanding? Or on the part of a fragile ego which is triggered into a sputtering, adolescent rage upon being exposed to ideas like “privilege” and “rape culture”?

Upon closer examination, it would certainly seem that when it comes to internet harassment culture and trigger warnings, the true “coddling” in this situation is the coddling of the consciousness that lashes out in denial of the suffering of others.

Here is another one of Eric the Green's articles: http://philosopherswheel.com/cosmicclock...ation.html

It is interesting because it reminds me of one of those anime shows that was popular in Japan and the US in the 1990s. Also, it explains a lot about history and the future. It is also in sync with the birth of modern Judaism, my religion. From what the article says, we are in the 8th house phase.

I wanted to correct an error in my latest posting, but couldn't find
an "Edit" link. Did I miss it? Has that been disabled? Could it be
enabled?

Here's an interesting interview about the i ideology of people in Silicon Valley.  It's from AEI, a conservative think thank but still interesting.

http://www.aei.org/publication/what-does...erenstein/

Quote:A lot has been made of the tech world’s growing involvement in politics — from accusations that social media sites such as Facebook are politically biased, to questions over certain Silicon Valley leaders’ endorsements, to the sector’s support of issues such as more high-skill immigration.

Republicans and other on the right bemoan that Silicon Valley tends to go blue. They’re confused. How could this hotbed of entrepreneurship and wealth creation be largely pro-Democrat? But Silicon Valley boasts a unique culture that emerges from an environment of competition, innovation, government involvement, and collaboration. As journalist Greg Ferenstein has written, these “hippies who dig capitalism and science” – many of them millennials – are hard to label. They go with the public policies that make their ventures possible.

So what is the “political philosophy” of Silicon Valley? And what do these tech leaders want from public policy? I sat down with Greg, editor of the Ferenstein Wire and author of The Age Of Optimists, a free book on Silicon Valley’s political endgame, available on Medium. Here’s some of our conversation, which you can listen at in full over on Ricochet.


http://www.aei.org/publication/what-does...erenstein/

In all this time, I never posted any info about the horoscopes of Neil Howe and William Strauss. Howe was born Oct.21, 1951 and Strauss Dec.5, 1947.

Neil has the aspect that I would immediately correlate with interest in generations: The Moon-Uranus conjunction in the family sign Cancer (ruled by The Moon itself). Uranus, of course, is the planet of the saeculum, since it orbits the Sun at the same rate as a saeculum, 83-84 years, and is said by Dane Rudhyar (greatest 20th century astrologer-philosopher) to have its characteristics just because this is the normal length of a human life (same determining factor as the saeculum). Strauss has Moon in Virgo, but it makes a strong square to Uranus, I believe (birth times are not known; I never asked).

The other saeculum planets are Neptune (2x a saeculum) and Pluto (3x). Strauss has the Sun in close aspect to both planets; sextile to Neptune and trine to Pluto. Howe has a Sun-Neptune conjunction.

William Strauss's horoscope is notable for his Sun in Sagittarius conjunct Jupiter (that sign's ruling planet). This is a sign of a broad outlook and a wide scope of interests, which lends itself to conceiving expansive theories like the generations theory and the turnings. It is the most-prophetic sign interested in long-term visions and plans. It is exhuberant and cheerfully optimistic, and sometimes righteous and preachy. Strauss was always the more outgoing and gregarious of the two authors; also the most argumentative, as shown also by his square of Mercury to Mars and Saturn. His relatively-conservative views (relative to his generation in youth, at least) are shown by this Saturn aspect, and his moral culture-warrior interests and conservatism by Sagittarius as well as Venus in Capricorn.

Both authors were highly educated, and both have Mars in analytical and critical sign Virgo. Neil has become a well-respected expert on generations, economics and demographics. Being a Libra, Howe has a more balanced, elegant, diplomatic and cautious personality than Strauss, and Moon in Cancer (as well as its likely square to Saturn) also indicates more privacy and caution, and an interest in wise conserving of resources, including investments, finances, family/ancestral or generational values, and land or properties. Venus and Mars together in Virgo show a passionate love of analysis and investigation, which is compatible with Strauss' Moon in Virgo. Neil Howe also has a powerful, outstanding Jupiter in Aries (which in this case represents pioneering leadership as a prophet and visionary planner).

(05-25-2016, 12:48 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(05-25-2016, 12:42 AM)Galen Wrote: Everyone I know eventually gets tired of being kicked and the first chance they get they rip out the throat of the person doing the kicking.  In the US you are seeing a bit of that with Trump and Sanders.  This is a warning to the political class but I think they will ignore it as they always have.

Eventually they will have to pay attention. It has always been that way with revolutions in this kind of era we are in.

I found this article dealing with astrology that interested me.

Here is the URL: http://philosopherswheel.com/thethreerevolutions.html.

By the way, I found a correlation between 1730, the semi-square, and a revolutionary event. That event is the First Great Awakening.

Yes, the man who wrote the article has an account on this website. Beyond that, from an astrological perspective, it is interesting. I recommend reading it.

Delaying hypersonic weapon development could be costly.

Quote:http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/b...px?ID=2187
… "The U.S. Air Force has no immediate plans to conduct hypersonic vehicle flight tests, the service's chief scientist said May 17.

Greg Zacharias said he "was not aware" of any set dates for a U.S. hypersonic flight test. 

Russia and China both conducted hypersonic missile flight tests in April, according to the Washington Free Beacon. There were at least five Chinese flights between 2014 and 2015, according to a 2016 Mitchell Institute report, Hypersonic Weapons and U.S. National Security.”…

When members of different generations have run for the presidency

Liberty Generation
 
First serious candidate: George Washington, 1788
First candidate to win nomination: n/a
First candidate to be elected: George Washington, 1788
Last president:  John Adams, 1797-1901
Last serious candidate:  John Adams, 1800
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 59

Republican Generation

 
First serious candidate: Thomas Jefferson, 1796
First candidate to win nomination: Thomas Jefferson, 1796
First candidate to be elected: Thomas Jefferson, 1800
Last president:  James Monroe, 1817-1825
Last serious candidate: James Monroe, 1820
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 54
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 54

Compromise Generation
 
First serious candidate: several, 1824
First candidate to win nomination: several, 1824*
First candidate to be elected: John Quincy Adams, 1824
Last president:  James Buchanan, 1857-1861
Last serious candidate: James Buchanan, 1856
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 57
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 65


*Technically there were no political parties in 1824 just factions of the Democratic-Republican party that contested the General election and later organized into parties.

Transcendental Generation
 
First serious candidate: James K. Polk, 1844
First candidate to win nomination: James K. Polk, 1844
First candidate to be elected: James K. Polk, 1844
Last president:  Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
Last serious candidate: Samuel J. Tilden, 1876
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 52
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 55



Gilded Generation
 
First serious candidate: George B. McClellan,1864
First candidate to win nomination: George B. McClellan,1864
First candidate to be elected: Ulysses S. Grant, 1868
Last president:  Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
Last serious candidate: Richard P. Bland, 1896
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 42
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 54



Progressive Generation
 
First serious candidate: William McKinley,1896
First candidate to win nomination: William McKinley,1896
First candidate to be elected: William McKinley, 1896
Last president:  Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
Last serious candidate: Robert La Follette, 1924, or Leonard Wood and Frank Orren Lowden, 1920
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 53
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 61 or 65

 

Missionary Generation
 
First serious candidate: William Jennings Bryan,1896
First candidate to win nomination: William Jennings Bryan,1896
First candidate to be elected: Warren G. Harding, 1920
Last president:  FDR, 1933-1945
Last serious candidate: FDR, 1944
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 36
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 62


 
Lost Generation
 
First serious candidate: Alf Landon, 1936
First candidate to win nomination: Alf Landon, 1936
First candidate to be elected: Harry Truman, assumed office 1945, won his own term 1948
Last president:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-1960
Last serious candidate: Ike, 1956
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 53
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 55



GI Generation
 
First serious candidate: Thomas Dewey 1940
First candidate to win nomination: Thomas Dewey 1944
First candidate to be elected: JFK 1960
Last president: George HW Bush 1989-1993
Last serious candidate: Bob Dole 1996
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 39
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 72


 
Silent Generation
 
First serious candidate: RFK 1968
First candidate to win nomination: Walter Mondale 1984
First candidate to be elected: n/a
Last president: n/a
Last serious candidate: Bernie Sanders 2016?
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 43
Age of youngest cohort at time of last serious candidate: 74


 
Baby Boomers
 
First serious candidate: Al Gore 1988
First candidate to win nomination: Bill Clinton 1992
First candidate to be elected: Bill Clinton 1992
Last president: ??
Last serious candidate: ??
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 45

Generation X
 
First serious candidate:  Barack Obama 2008
First candidate to win nomination: Barack Obama 2008
First candidate to be elected: Barack Obama 2008
Last president: ??
Last serious candidate: ??
Age of oldest cohort at time of first serious candidate: 47