At the start of the 2014-15 school year, which we’re just finishing now, collidge students throughout this great land demanded “trigger warnings” be posted on books of literature, textbooks, or any other kind of potentially upsetting material that might send a poor, defenseless student spiraling into post-traumatic stress disorder. At my own alma mater, Rutgers–they’re always trying to hit me up for money, and I always say no–some budding interllectural called for a warning label to be slapped on to The Great Gatsby on account of its “gory, abusive, and mysogynistic violence” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/us/warning-the-literary-canon-could-make-students-squirm.html ).
Please don’t stop to consider how the same people who grow up playing Zombie Holocaust every waking moment turn into dainty little drips who can’t read The Great Gatsby because it might be too scary for them.
This has caught on at various universities, nationwide. At the U. of California, Santa Barbara, the student government formally demanded that “trigger warnings” be placed on all sorts of reading material.
You don’t know what a trigger warning is? Don’t blame yourself. The term was invented only recently and is only used by morons in the academic world. Not at all surprisingly, the warnings “have their ideological roots in feminist thought,” according to the New York Times. Of course.
Oberlin College published a guide to trigger warnings, containing this jewel of wisdom:
“Triggers are not only relevant to sexual misconduct, but also to anything that might cause trauma… racism, classism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other means of privilege and oppression…”
I wonder which is worse–cissexism or ableism?
But here’s the kicker: someday, blithering idiots who know all about cissexism and ableism, and can go rattling on about them for hours, will be old enough to vote and hold public office. They will become the next generation of teachers, noozies, lawyers, judges, and bureaucrats.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Good grief. I bet ISIS never thinks about this topic, and that’s precisely why they may well achieve their earthly goals:
From Wikipedia: “In many circles, there is disagreement as to how to refer to themselves and if referring to themselves as “disabled” counts as internalized ableism. These groups may prefer the terms non-neurotypical or neurodivergent for mental divergences, or non-common-bodied for physical divergences. For those that do call themselves disabled, most prefer being referred to as disabled people, rather than people with disabilities, because the latter uses person-first language that separates the person from their disability, rather than identity-first language. In effect, it denies that their disability is a part of who they are and thereby denies the ableism itself.”
Western interlleckhsulls are too busy inventing new words that don’t mean anything to recognize the real threats to our culture.
We really have cause to doubt the sanity of Western interllecturals. They are absolutely fixated on problems that range from the microscopically trivial to the purely imaginary.
It’s a pitiful attempt to transfer their disability to those who aren’t. “I’m able, you’re dis.” Like a government-sanctioned redistribution of disability.
I’ve got plenty of labels that I DEMAND be put on whiny students.