tippy2k2 said:
Yes, passive aggressive shots like saying how I can name tropes for other users
Okay, you don't understand what a trope namer is. That's fine. But instead of assuming, you could have asked.
No, Tippy, a trope namer is something for which a trope is named, not the capacity to name tropes for other users. It wasn't a passive-aggressive shot, it was building on someone who commented (correctly) that your logic was so utterly broken a fallacy was yet to actually be named for it. I simply suggested that the logic I had already indicated was broken and faulty be attributed to you. Because what you said was super fallacious. It was supercallafallacyexpialadocious.
Again, if that's passive aggressive in your book, you're using a different book. I am in no way disguising my feelings on the subject.
and calling me honey (or maybe you call everyone honey but every time I've seen someone says "honey" to anyone they're in a debate with, it' a "Awww, it's so cute that you're trying to debate" insult).
Trust me, there's nothing cute about this. Weird that you just admitted that you simply assumed this was passive aggression rather than just an article of speech. Undercut yourself in the same sentence.
As for the Billy Madison thing, that was before we started talking.
Irrelevant. Hell, had the video and rant not been there, this likely would have been an entirely different discussion.
I said above that I am very willing to listen to what you have to say (and I am willing to amend my beliefs if you give me something to work with as I have demonstrated with an Edit already to clear up what I mean to say) but you just keep saying that you've already explained what triggers are and that your therapist agrees and that I should Google the answer.
You said you were willing to listen. Then you ignore half of what you read and posted the Billy Madison thing and ranted about the concept of triggers based on some armchair internet experts[footnote]And if you want to count me as one of those armchair experts, that's fine. Except I've pointed you to multiple sources, even by name, with medical citations and papers linked to them. I'm not even sure what more you would want[/footnote]. It's like you haven't paid attention to your own bullshit, let alone what I've been saying. And I did describe what a trigger is, now three times to my count, in various forms. The point of bringing up Google was not to circumvent that, but rather to demonstrate that you could have known
literally everything I said had you done some homework rather than going "I don't know what triggers are" and then launching into a rant. The other point I mention google was when you asked for sources. Again, this was not to circumvent, but to explain how I came to such obscure information.
Nothing about your original post, post edit where you ranted and bitched and summed up your feelings with a video that says everyone's dumber for having heard this and may God have mercy on your soul that....Nothing says "I am a person willing to listen to others."
And despite your claims, that video, and that summation are still in your post. If that's understanding, I'm the queen of tolerance and kindness. Now, you can specify that it's based on what people have said, but the responses you got aren't necessarily different from people with PTSD. While I have denoted a difference between "internet triggers" and the term in psychology, there is a clear overlap in populations as that's where this originated. There are PTSD and anxiety and abuse sufferers on the internet. Even on that wretched hive of scum and villainy that is Tumblr. They are people who are legitimately set off in response to certain situation, or ideas, and this is not a simple issue of offense. If you've never dealt with a moment of sheer terror or panic that bypasses all reasonable thought, I don't know what to tell you, but you jumped to offense. Even as I was specifying those "medical" issues which supposedly don't count. It is massively confusing to be told one minute that I'm using the word differently, and the next to be told that you're already making an exception for literally the only thing I'm talking about. But you go back and forth on that:
So maybe that's the issue. Because I have a feeling that I agree with what you're saying but we're (or maybe it's just "I'm") getting tripped up over definitions here (it would help if you'd just answer my questions about the definition though rather than telling me I need to go do my homework). To me, when I hear someone say "Trigger", it's them getting offended over something and not wanting to talk about something. When it's a medical issue with PTSD, that's a medical condition causing them problems, not the fact that a certain topic has been brought up or a word has been spoken.
First, medical conditions are acceptable. Then, "where's your proof?" which, you might remember, came right after I mentioned mental illness. Then, medical conditions are acceptable. Then, "you haven't explained what a trigger is" when supposedly medical issues are acceptable and I made the mistake of assuming that meant that you were accepting them.
And considering I have always specified mental illness, I'm not sure where the problem is.
I'm curious, legitimately freaking curious as to how much more explicit I can get than saying "metal illness" and specifying PTSD (which would qualify as the "trope namer," though it's been used for other disorders, predominantly other anxiety disorders) are what I'm talking about. Because you seem to be running a Schrodinger's Cat argument, where the "cat" is a "trigger" which is simultaneously both excusable and not. Your continued talking points show a lack of understanding and your responses to me claiming I haven't explained myself suggest a lack of willingness to understand.
You do understand that definition had nothing to do with offense, right? From that same post:
CrystalShadow said:
Well, anyway, it can really mess a person up.
It's actually something I've already described, just with different wording.
And switching to Crystal for a mo....
And yes, it can seem really stupid, even to the person it happens to. (I find it kind of pathetic that I'm so easily turned into an emotional wreck by some of the topivs that have done so to me in the past)
I still have trouble not beating myself up for getting set off by things I logically and rationally know shouldn't be issues. This applies to PTSD, but I'm also an OCD sufferer (Hell, I've had more than one shrink suggest the two may be or are related) and spend a lot of time dealing with obsessions and compulsions I know aren't rational, but deal with the issue that even with therapy and medication, they sometimes just beat on me until they win and I give on to the behaviour in question. My blog's actually dealt with this a couple of times of late because there is little that can push my anxiety to the breaking point faster than my family and their atom-bomb-like subtlety and compassion, and the holidays are a time of family....and breaking. To some extent, being aware that it's not necessarily rational makes the problem feel worse. Isn't the human psyche just wonderful?
