I don’t understand why they didn’t have Trump give it… like I’m not rooting for Trump and the GOP deserves to be in chaos, but Trump would have done an infinitly better job. Like “look at me, I’m your other choice. Here’s what I’m claiming to bring to the table.” Instead they gave us Senator Mrs. Whomever talking weird.
It’s honestly so bad that it’s actually getting it more views and it’s being covered everywhere including the Daily Show. Part of me wonders if that’s the intent but then I realize much of the GOP is completely incompetent.
Also, since the BoRDeR CriSiS is going to literally be the GOP’s only attack this election cycle, let’ remind them of a couple things:
Republicans blocked the border plan THEY originally wanted and which the Border Patrol themselves endorsed. <— Republicans chose politics over policy.
iLlEGal ImMiGraNts actually commit less violent crime as a whole than American citizens themselves…
Right-Wing domestic extremists are far more violent.
Such undocumented immigrants yield a net-positive to our economy as a whole.
The contrast of one of the greatest SOTU speeches in history to an utterly creepy call to gather a nut-fringe group to take over the Republican tent is a two piece diorama of what we are today. We are the UNITED States. I hope everyone spends some time thinking of what that means.
It should be clear to everyone, now that we are not united and never have been and holding this country together is a bigger challenge than anyone these days realizes.
I would respectfully disagree. The speechwriters crafted a fairly strong piece of rhetoric, but it wasn’t particularly substantial and the delivery was substandard, that’s just the honest truth.
Also “one of the greatest in history because it happened now” is not a great argument. Nunc pro tunc, as they say.
Yeah, I agree. It was well-written, and I thought it was good, but saying this was the best SOTU of all time seems a bit far-fetched. Biden straight-up isn’t a great orator, and that’s fine by me. I would rather someone who can do the job than make wonderful speeches.
Now, how Biden dealt with the hecklers was pretty great, I’ll say.
Holy fuck - my girl goes from her kids & her kitchen table to graphic descriptions of sexual assault in like 0.2 seconds.
Give a fucking warning or some shit at least, you awful excuse for a “lawmaker”. Think of the “children” who you consistently use as an excuse to take actions against the LGBTQ community that cause them and their families to live in constant fear. Because those families don’t matter like yours, obviously.
Also, all the economic shit you bitch about - why people are poor and have no retirement - that’s on you and your friends’ watches. And to your “fellow moms” who struggle - lower the cost to childcare. Help single mothers. Make real maternity and paternity leave a thing. Lower the cost of healthcare.
Or just keep screaming into that camera like the fake POS you are. That’ll help.
Not just the former guy. Trump, Bush, Reagan all gutted tax revenue by repeatedly handing tax breaks to the wealthy who neither needed nor deserved them.
There’s always more money but the more you make the less worth it becomes what gives other major issues. There are enough countries that tried this and failed.
But yeah, the defence industry is a self serving industry and slashing budget hurts hardware providers which are also wealthy campaign donation contributors so nothing happens.
There’s plenty of money in the Pentagon budget. We don’t need to increase taxes on anyone to pay for social programs. We need to stop spending it on crimes against humanity.
EU was able to do that because they know the US will jump in if there’s trouble. We’re funding European defense while they fund social programs and act smug about it on the internet.
The US has thousands of nukes, oceans to the east and west, and allies to the north and south. We do not need this much military spending to defend ourselves.
The military is not for protecting themselves but for protecting trade and markets. That was also the deal with Europe: USA protect you and you buy our stuff with our currency. It’s what you see with the Houthis in Yemen. Nobody cares they kill some people, but they’re disturbing trade routes so action must be taken.
Conclusion Existing research on content warnings, content notes, and trigger warnings suggests that they are fruitless, although they do reliably induce a period of uncomfortable anticipation. Although many questions warrant further investigation, trigger warnings should not be used as a mental-health tool.
I sometimes like them, but literally only as a content label and not some glorified mental health save. Sometimes it’s nice to choose not to ruin a good mood by reading a downer of a story.
In reality that’s a practice that should already be done though. Use of tags for content should be able to tell you what you’re getting into. Normally people have a pretty good idea about what they’re getting into already when consuming content.
Saying ‘Rape trigger warning’ literally only just makes somebody who has a trigger regarding rape immediately anticipate a trigger even if they decided against consuming the content. I’ve pulled the most succinct evidence below.
Response affect Most of the empirical inquiry into the efficacy of trigger warnings has focused on emotional responses toward material accompanied by warnings (e.g., ratings of anxiety while reading passages; Bellet et al., 2018). These studies have reached mixed conclusions. Most studies (Bellet et al., 2020; Boysen et al., 2021; Bridgland et al., 2019; Gavac, 2020; Sanson et al., 2019) have concluded that trigger warnings have a trivial impact on emotional responses. Two studies found that warnings increase negative emotional reactions toward material (Bellet et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2020). Only one study concluded that warnings may reduce emotional reactions toward material (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018).
Avoidance Several previous studies have examined behavioral avoidance of material accompanied by a warning (e.g., choosing a video title presented with or without a trigger warning; Gainsburg & Earl, 2018). Several studies have found that warnings have a negligible effect on avoidance toward material (Jones et al., 2020; Sanson et al., 2019). Other studies have concluded that warnings may lead to small increases in avoidance behaviors (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018) or small increases in engagement with material (Bruce & Roberts, 2020).
Anticipatory affect A small handful of previous studies have experimentally tested emotional reactions (e.g., state anxiety; Bridgland et al., 2019) in the anticipatory period after giving a warning but prior to exposure to the warned-about content. This literature consistently demonstrates that viewing a trigger warning appears to increase anticipatory anxiety prior to viewing content (Boysen et al., 2021; Bridgland et al., 2019; Bridgland & Takarangi, 2021; Bruce et al., 2023; Gainsburg & Earl, 2018).
Comprehension Finally, other studies have investigated the way that warnings might enhance or reduce the comprehension of stimuli (e.g., scores on a multiple-choice test for factual content; e.g., Boysen et al., 2021). These studies have found that trigger warnings do not seem to impair or enhance the comprehension of educational material (Boysen et al., 2021; Gavac, 2020; Sanson et al., 2019).
Yea, any emphasis beyond a basic label is just inviting scrutiny. Glorifying “trigger warnings” above just negative labels definitely puts way too much emphasis on them.
You literally just described how it’s a mental health save though. If a content/trigger warning gives you the opportunity it’s to skip the content and not be put into a bad mood, that’s a mental health save. For you, it’s maybe small. For someone with cptsd, it could be pretty fuckin big.
The entire point is most of the time it doesn’t come with such an opportunity. Is someone supposed to go through all the effort of skipping classes and assignments just because a label showed up on a topic? No.
It’s not a mental save. It’s merely forewarning. The entire point is it isn’tproviding a mental save. In my case, I only gain the benefit because I can skip the content with no other repercussions.
I didn’t have that experience in school (albeit that was 10 years ago) and the only places I’ve seen TWs is the internet.
So maybe it’s a situation of time and place when it is and isn’t effective. But in a case where there’s no opportunity to abstain, then I agree with you that it’s merely a forewarning and largely useless aside from keeping the topic from causing a bit of whiplash.
Take your train of thought one step further. Because there is no actual tangible benefit to be gained, it means there is no practical difference between a trigger warning and a basic content label. Treating them as anything more is simply glorifying a label.
To be clear, I conditionally agree with you based on the context and setting where it’s used. But, that’s what they are. Content labels. And a content label (ostensibly) should allow you to decide in advance if you want to consume the content. If you don’t have a choice in the matter, what’s the point?
We’ve been rating movies for forever for this exact reason. To give people information to decide if they want to consume the content considering the violence, sexual content, language, drug use, etc.
In the case of trigger warnings, they’re intended to say ‘this content is potentially triggering for some people due to this particular topic’ (SA, eating disorders, drug use, etc., all have vulnerable people who can be genuinely triggered by reading content about it, especially if it’s in detail). And having the opportunity to not consume that content rather than be slapped in the face with it is a mental health save. It has value in that context, which you even described in your own comment. You sometimes like them, and that’s when I’m saying they have value as trigger warnings specifically.
I didn’t think I was being unclear and I’m sorry if I was, but we seem to agree here. You just appear to be saying ‘all trigger warnings are dumb and don’t help with mental health’ while going on to describe how they (sometimes) help with mental health.
I’m curious to understand more of the setting where they collected this data.
If they collected it from volunteers who signed up for studies, then I’d question whether or not the data collected is reliable. In a clinical setting people are more likely to push through discomfort than they are at home on their phone. I don’t have the stamina to look through every referenced study to try and suss it out though.
I’ve seen a lot of modern studies with questionable data collection. It was a significant portion of a few of my psych and sociology classes in college.
The nature of this study would suggest to me that they take it into account as it doesn’t feel like it’s pushing an agenda, but it’s still good to be skeptical. Especially with regards to such vague and difficult to assess responses.
They absolutely should be used if it’s not apparent from the cover. A person with rape induced PTSD will benefit from knowing they need to either not consume this media or be ready with their coping skills.
What’s not helpful is putting them everywhere there is even a tangential chance of something. This speech could do with one. Some streamer using the word rape pejoratively does not. And of course it isn’t going to make the anxiety any better. That’s not the purpose of a trigger warning.
The difference between having your coping tools at the front of your mind and ready to go versus being surprised by graphic depictions of your trauma can literally be weeks of depression and panic attacks versus a few minutes of mindfulness exercises.
Edit to add - for a bunch of psychology professors they miss the point pretty impressively.
I mean it’s sad but predictable when your sanest member still sounds like a lunatic because that’s what the Republican party wants in their leaders.
However I do understand what she was going for in the whole kitchen aesthetic, you know trying to connect with the old boomers that have kitchens talking about their “Kitchen Table” issues.
“A study in 1997 explored family relationships in later life and found that 7 percent of adult children had cut ties with their mother and 27 percent from their father. In 2020, research by sociologist Karl Pillemar showed that 1 in 4 Americans are estranged from their families—roughly 67 million people.”
From the second article that provides links to the studies
Julia Ioffe, Washington correspondent for Puck News, said: “Imagine you’re sleeping over at a friend’s house and you get up in the middle of the night to pee and you hear a weird sound so you follow it to the kitchen, where your friend’s mom is drunk, crying, and rambling about the national debt. Those are the vibes from Katie Britt right now.”
Fucking amazing. So so accurate.
Watts said: “Senator Katie Britt says sexual assault is the worst thing that can happen to a woman while encouraging Americans to vote for a convicted sexual predator.”
Watts on point.
Republicans baffled by Katie Britt’s State of the Union response: ‘One of our biggest disasters’
So… did nobody review what she was going to say, or how she was going to say it, before they filmed it?
The scariest thing about this isn’t even Britt’s speech, it’s that there must be a group of people around her who were totally on board with it. This is the message they wanted to send.
Like most cults (and Trump/conservative have become one).
Getting to positions of power is based solely on dedication to the cult. NOT competency at the job. It usually ensures the least qualified person is in charge.
I’m somewhat suspicious that there are huge swaths of the Republican Party that simply refuse to talk to each other or coordinate in any official capacity. Like, some of them are coordinating with the old guard, some are coordinating with Trump directly, some are coordinating with the national GOP, and some are just doing what they think Trump would want them to do.
All that said, it’s deeply disconcerting to see that their ramshackle organization still has a shitload of momentum simply due to the fact they’ve kinda converted into a cult.
Not to invoke Godwin’s Law, but decentralization like this worked GREAT for the Nazis before they took power. It’s real terror-cell tactics - if one of them gets busted saying or doing something that’s totally fucking whack, the national GOP can just say “well we weren’t coordinating their messages, those words and actions don’t represent us, etc etc”.
There is something extremely creepy about her tone of voice and body language. One second it feels like she is trying to convince you that she is genuine but she tries too hard which immediately make you think she is faking it. All of a sudden she sounds angry in a very serious way which makes me think she is a psychopath and she about to stab me in the neck with an ice pick. My immediate instinctive reaction is to stop the video. Last time I was this creeped out was watching Anthony Hopkins’ performance in Silence of the Lamb. Of course that was just really good acting of a fictional character and this is a real life person which makes it even more disturbing.
I bet this one is a total nut in the sack, but given my anecdotal experiences - it’s never worth it. Definite bunny boiler vibes…I get the same vibes from Boebert, BTW. The fact that she was having a grope sesh in public was probably the least surprising Boebert news, ever.
I had to turn it off halfway through. My kid was playing switch and said Daddy, what’s she talking about? And I had to turn it off out of fear that he would take any of it at face value. I told him she was lying to try to get votes and turned it off.
Last time I was this creeped out was watching Anthony Hopkins’ performance in Silence of the Lamb.
I had the same feeling watching it, and there’s a reason for it.
Filming the movie, Anthony Hopkins and the director and editor collaborated around making sure he basically never fucking blinks on camera. It causes a very unsettling effect when there’s long periods of not blinking.
Her manner of speaking reminds me of the sermons you get at ‘modern’/nondenominational churches here in the south. Just the way phrases are timed, the intonation, the need to make every minute factual statement sound emotionally profound…
I have to wonder if she is consciously trying to speak in that way. I don’t know why they would think that was a good approach for a political speech lmao. It’s just so bizarre I can’t actually process it.
It’s a good approach because their base is open to it. They are used to listening to that cadence and inflection with openness and willingness to swallow whatever poison is in the message, and that conditioning makes it so that the content doesn’t matter, only the delivery.
I doubt she even recognizes that she’s doing it too. She’s just used to authority with a microphone speaking this way and so she does it too. It’s exactly how I used to be before I got out.
Yep. The same bunch that would buy the qtarded conspiracy theories, or fall for Satanic panic, or that Jaysus is going to come back any day now and start up some bad fan-fic ala Left Behind is totally going to eat this drivel up with a spoon.
Add comment