- “These examples may seem extreme, but the reasoning behind them has become more commonplace on campus in recent years” (para. 26). Explain this reasoning in your own words and quote from the text in your response. Also, consider the claim critically. Do you agree? Why or why not? Give reasons!
According to the article, being offended is “a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense.” Being offended is not just simply someone’s emotional response to a statement, but also calls for an apology since the offending statement insinuates that the offender said something wrong and or insensitive. I understand that a lot of students get in trouble for offending other students, but everyone has the right to be offended because of what someone else might say. You have every right in the world to be offended when another person is being insensitive. But when people pretend to be offended and or shame others for being offended by saying “it’s not a big deal” that is not okay. This reiterates the idea that it is also not okay to invalidate another person’s feelings, even if it is after you’ve realized what you said was wrong and you try to justify yourself. There are times where a headline of someone being reprimanded about saying something offensive might not make any sense to you, but it does make sense to others who might also be offended by it and completely agree that that person was rightfully reprimanded. There are always people who pick opposite sides, stay in the middle, or just not acknowledge the situation at all but not acknowledging that something was offensive can be even more harmful in the long run.
- What’s wrong with “fortune telling and trigger warnings” (para 31+). This question invites you to say what the authors think is wrong with them AND to think about it for yourself. It’s ok to disagree with the text – with reasons!
The authors seem to believe that both fortune telling and trigger warnings are inherently bad. But they also admit that trigger warnings are used to help prevent flashbacks or panic attacks for people who have experienced trauma. The authors specifically reference that “Trigger warnings became particularly prevalent in self-help and feminist forums, where they allowed readers who had suffered from traumatic events like sexual assault to avoid graphic content that might trigger flashbacks or panic attacks”so how are the authors seeing trigger warnings as bad at just a glance? In the article it seems the authors just ignore the fact that trigger warnings do great things by informing people who might need to pass by that information. But what the authors don’t seem to understand is that you yourself do not need to understand where someone’s strong emotions may be coming from, but you cannot invalidate those feelings from the same lack of understanding. Later in this section of the article, the authors talk about habituation. But habituation can’t be forced upon someone either, you can only offer help or emotional support to see if the individual accepts it or not. I understand that psychology states that it is a bad idea to shelter someone away from what they fear, but it takes people time to try and face their fear/problem. If someone hasn’t had enough time or isn’t open to the idea of being helped, it is not your place to take it upon yourself to give that person treatment/help.
