Without context I can't know for sure, but this sounds an awful lot like "I'm allowed to be an asshole, but you can't pick on me because I'm special."
Fuck that noise, if you can't swim stay out of the pool.
Where was that implied?
"I don't care what it is we did..."
There's a difference between "picking on someone" and "intentionally driving someone to suicide and/or giving someone a severe panic attack."
Edit: I'll put it this way: should Sig allow me to threaten to rape and murder someone if they annoy me enough?
Fuck you, you fucking fuck. I hope your dog runs away and your cat barfs on the carpet.
Your criticisms are triggering me. STOP IT.
1. You have not told me about this before and so I could not have "triggered" you intentionally
2. Being criticized is not anyone's trigger, so your strawman fails in that regard.
3. The post was talking about triggering someone when they are actually triggered by something and you know it, not whatever KiA strawman you have in your head
Also, do you consider that a nerotypical person might also overreact as well?
This blog post was presented as an example of the worst of SJ, and because it was in here and not somewhere else I tried to cast a critical eye on it to see how it could be 'bad.' There is only one way I could think of that would make this a bad example -- using it as a shield and excuse. Devoid of any context and supporting evidence it's a call you can only make a hypothetical way, but
if that unsupported hypothesis
is correct then fuck that guy for doing it.
I also showed in the blog where, for me at least, you could come to that conclusion since it was absolving him/her of responsibility for their actions.
Then I want all smart-ass and showed how it could be abused.
And that brings us to here. Frankly, without any evidence one way or another about this blog, I think you're right. To try and look at it in a negative light, particularly after the point you bring up and having reread it, is disingenuous. You correctly point out that you could not have knowingly triggered me in my example, and that deliberateness of action is the key to whether or not the blog post is good or not at face value. The blogger writes "if you were considering" (full confession, I missed that part the first time around) and so is talking about a willful action on the triggerer's part and not carte blanche protection from consequences. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Granted, it can still be abused if somebody wanted to, but it becomes very hard to level any criticism at the post itself.
