Triggered!!!!

Hm well why keep debating with anyone that cannot keep the point but goes on just rambling to basically tryna have the last word. It would make sense that that type of ego would also just feed on the pointless arguing and perhaps even feels victorious after hes/hers rambling made someone lose their cool.

I use to have heated debates with all sort of ppl in other forums and quite long time ago and these same immature behaviors were as rampant as today, in certain places, today it is obviously much more wider in scale and it is sad to see where it is going but still same time if you care about the topics in question just keep your cool and they will most likely just expose em self.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This is the first time I have ever agreed with something you have posted and I couldn't agree more. It has to be one of the most immature, annoying and dismissive statements to come into use in the last decade.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

An OP I did some time ago on a the same issue, different POV maybe.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It is immensely irritating.That and the word "Nazi" which has by this time lost all meaning.I'm at the point where if someone is referred to as a Nazi,i expect the person to be sane,sensible,and probably quite decent,just not so much a liberal/leftist.

Does the term not originate from psychology ? I consider it quite accurately descriptive and it pushes on people's emotional understanding of each other . Unfortunately with wider use it becomes a tool which can then become a misused tool , and people misuse it , which is where folk fall foul of it . Snowflake is also a term , accurately descriptive , triggered snowflake : even better . Rather more concise than saying ,' a pathetic mentality which melts down at the first sign of heat

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

"COLLUSION" is another that all of a sudden...I see being used by people worldwide like they full understand its interpretation....I guess they are confusedly colluded, convoluted and pol-luted!*

*I hope this too at least "triggered" a smile!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I agree it's annoying, and pretty much a short cut to any kind of honest discussion. Like you said, it's pretty juvenile: when there is no reasonable response, just throw out the word "triggered." But apparently the word itself is a "trigger."

I also liken it to other buzzwords and talking points which have become prevalent, such as "SJW," "Nothingburger," leftists," and others I can't think of off the top of my head but which I see time and time again. The people who use these words largely can't think for themselves.

They hear these words and talking points somewhere (whether from their favorite conservative pundit, radio host, or blog, or elsewhere), or from someone else to whom they listen where the phrase circulates amidst camaraderie, and then parrot them as if it's an original thought, because, once again, instead of thinking for themselves, they have been conditioned to parrot the go-to response.

And while they talk about "stop listening to and taking your information/talking points from the MSM XYZ etc" they themselves are conditioned by the very BS propaganda they listen to and spout it right back as if it is original.

It's sad, really.

I find it midly interesting, that every generation invents new terms of inderment for the opposition, its the evolution of how humans come up with a new usage of the english language, honestly it fascinates me.

Just like when my kids come back from school or summer camp and have a totaly new vocabulary.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What I hate about it is all of the things you just ranted about. You are 100% correct.

What I like about it is that the main folks who use the term as a pejorative (4chan conservative types) are the ones these days (and historically) getting "triggered" by anything that doesn't support their views. And just saying they are "triggered" gets them all riled up.

It's silly. It's the kind of irony I can appreciate. But... hopefully it dies soon.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yep, I have the same sentiments. The buzz word, generalizing, bullies on this website are irritatIng.

To put it bluntly, its for stupid folks and sociopaths.

I first saw it used years ago in groups on facebook dealing with mental health, depression, etc.

A trigger warning, in case what someone would say could trigger someone to self harm or worse.

And it's fitting given that something simple that normal society says or does, can trigger people of unstable mentality into raging...

It's a nothing burger... (now that one, I just don't get).

originally posted by: mblahnikluver
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

YES!!!!!! OMG YES! I agree 100%

It's the new in word on the internet and it drives me nuts how it is used in the wrong context almost every time! Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that's a trigger!

People will post ***** TRIGGER***** At the top of a post and then go on about their hair or something silly and I'm like how in the world is this a trigger! It drives me crazy.

Lmao, oh god I've never seen it used that way.

Hopefully the respondents told the OP that their hair was on fleek to quell their dilemma !!

lol

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

it's unskilled trolling at this point.

say something that'll blow my mind.

I want to be truly offended.

Yo momma so big she has her own postcode.

*drops mic*

/slap badw0lf
"badw0lf slaps badw0lf around a bit with a large trout."

I agree. Another example of a term used by mental health professionals becoming popular and misused.

Slightly diverging from the topic of it's usage on message boards, it illustrates the very anglo-saxon idea that when emotion is involved, reason is absent. I always believed this to be true.

Now I have to deal with a culture in which emotion is valued and it twists my brain. People here think that if there is no emotional expression included, you are most likely being dishonest and not listening/engaging with the other person.

It's all about relating here, and if you are remaining purely reasonable and logical, it seems evil and inhumaine to them.

The funny thing is about collective value systems is that they seem to create exactly the expected results - people who refrain from emotional expression most of the time become completely out of control when it finally bursts forth (you get "road rage" and such) whereas when you do not practice emotional repression, but rather let it flow freely in immediate and daily ways, it doesn't seem to have that hijacking effect upon the intellect!

The people here can spit out anger without any holding back (for the smallest things even) and they don't become irrational.

Makes me wonder if that isn't how one actually gets good at emotional resiliance.

I feel the same way about the term 'micro-agression'

I thought the idea behind saying that someone was "triggered" was like the movie "The Manchurian Candidate" where someone calls on the phone and says, "Many miles to go before I sleep." At which point the person would be triggered by the code words to go and kill someone or perform some act of terror. The candidate has been brainwashed and then triggered to react by the use of specific words. That's what I thought that was all about.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I completely agree.

The intention of a person in discourse on a topic of import, ought to be to explore the topic involved, and state ones opinion of it, provide facts which might persuade a reasonable person to consider other approaches to whatever problem is being posed, not to mention ensuring at all times that ones contribution to the discussion is of a sort which improves the understanding of all parties, of the situation concerned and the issues which pertain thereto.

Entering discussion simply to "trigger" someone into having an emotional response, rather than to achieve any wider and more laudable aim, is hardly an appropriate, nor productive manner of going about things in my estimation. I expect that from the scum on 4chan and Reddit, but I expect better from the membership here.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I completely agree.

The intention of a person in discourse on a topic of import, ought to be to explore the topic involved, and state ones opinion of it, provide facts which might persuade a reasonable person to consider other approaches to whatever problem is being posed, not to mention ensuring at all times that ones contribution to the discussion is of a sort which improves the understanding of all parties, of the situation concerned and the issues which pertain thereto.

Entering discussion simply to "trigger" someone into having an emotional response, rather than to achieve any wider and more laudable aim, is hardly an appropriate, nor productive manner of going about things in my estimation. I expect that from the scum on 4chan and Reddit, but I expect better from the membership here.

I think that part of the interest in triggering is that many people see a debate as a competition - in which one must win and one must lose. If you can "trigger" your opponent to get emotional and lose their ability to think, analyze and argue rationally, you have a good chance of "winning"!


It seems to me (I might be wrong) that those who see debate as a competitive sport are not doing it to learn, expand their knowledge or awareness, nor aid their opponent in doing so. It's just for fun and the temporary sense of dominance.

I have times when I think I slightly enjoy debating with someone who is trying to "trigger" me (through personal taunts and insults, and the like) simply because it is helpful in developing my ability to detach myself from focus on those and continue the intellectual exploration regardless. It's like resistance training for the mind.

In the end, I do feel that people have the right to their opinions and to express them- that includes their opinion of me.
The only way to really allow them that is developing the ability to detach myself from placing much importance on it.

This made me think- perhaps the kids who cry triggered fifty times a day are actually trying to provoke such sorts of resistance matches, in order to develop this ability? Like, maybe not totally consciously?

I don't know, just thinking out loud. I don't think we really do anything for no reason at all...

a reply to: Bluesma

I think the problem here is that discourse is not meant to be an activity which feeds a persons need to feel dominant, or a process which ought to require resistance training, as you put it, though I can certainly see the value in that... for teenagers, young ones at that.

By adulthood, any notion or desire for dominance, or requirement for resistance training of the sort you refer to, ought to be well behind a person, as rather than training the mind for resistance, or practicing a method of receiving some sort of backward neurological reward for a false victory which achieves nothing greater than itself, the aim ought to be purely to root ones way to the truth, and improve the speed at which one can arrive at it for oneself.

While I appreciate that in the current climate, resistance training has become more necessary for the adults than ever before, mostly due to the shocking rise in trolling and nonsense peddling from certain quarters, it must be said that the necessity for that training is a disgrace! Things ought not be such in these parts, that one ought to need any such training!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Bluesma

I think the problem here is that discourse is not meant to be an activity which feeds a persons need to feel dominant, or a process which ought to require resistance training, as you put it, though I can certainly see the value in that... for teenagers, young ones at that.

But where can we find the basis for what an activity "ought" to be about ?
I mean, the competition drive, to have a sense of dominance or superiority over others, is something a large part of our population (of all ages) feel strongly. It is influencial in all kinds of exchanges and activities - in workplaces, sports, social gatherings....the will to power is deeply imbedded in human nature.

The goal of achieving intellectual mastery over ones emotions is very present in anglo saxon culture, in which the emotions are seen as part of the inferior "animal" part of us, which should be repressed and controlled by the superior intellect and reason.

We could say that a fully grown adult "ought" to have reached such mastery, but the reality, from what I can observe, is that very few actually reach that goal. At best, they find a sort of passive aggressive behavior, in which emotional influence sneaks into the intellectual discourse in less obvious ways.

I guess I don't feel so judgmental about the need for some of us (myself included) to develop a certain strength of self confidence which allows others their freedom of speech.

Having an ego that doesn't feel the need to defend itself faced with provocative insults is rare, it seems to me.

But I really have come to wonder lately if we aren't mistaken on the subject of emotion being the achilles heel of mankind. Many studies have shown that it plays an important role in good choice making.
It seems to be especially influential in moral choices, which makes sense, empathy being a big factor.

Don't get me wrong, I was raised by a psychoanalyst who used philosophy as his basis , and grew up really believing all questions (even ethical) can be considered through logic and reason alone. But I am at a point where I am questioning my own patterns of thought on this.

The current split in American politics, between the so-called Liberal and Conservative stances often seem to reflect a conflict on this issue of emotion versus reason. Each one accuses the other of succumbing to the influence of the evil emotional instincts. Either falling prey to the selfish desire for power (and fear of being powerless) or the self destructive martyrism of sympathy for those who would take advantage.

I just find myself asking lately - are we right about this? Is it really so bad to feel emotions and incorporate them in our choices? Are we ever truly free of their influence? Even when we think we are, brain studies show those parts of our brain are active..... we are most likely just in denial about it.

The whole triggered thing tires me in the end, because the ones that like to point fingers and accuse that seem to be the most invested emotionally themselves. It is like just trying to project it upon someone else. "Im not upset/angry, it's him/her who is!"

But it is emotion that bonds people together and creates collective force, which history shows us is a formidable energy and can topple systems. It might be smart to cultivate it, in certain cases.....