Reply To: [TW: rape] Helping Sea Monkeys with triggers (at karaoke and otherwise), was: JCCC4 Post-Mortem
I’m going to repeat this super slow, as the misinterpretation seems nigh willful at this point:
No one thinks that particular song needs to stay in the rotation. Even if we didn’t take it out, it would likely never be performed or played again because of this situation. No one has EVER EVER EVER said that this song must stay. No one WANTS TO TRIGGER ANYONE. NO ONE WANTS THAT SONG IN THE ROTATION. NO ONE HAS EVER ADVOCATED KEEPING THAT SONG.
What people have brought up are legitimate concerns about how to implement this particular ban, who gets to decide what is banned, should there be any recourse on the bannings, is it going to be on the honor system, is banning songs in general the best way to handle this, how should we handle things like this in the future? Could we protect people in a different/better way?
I understand triggers, thank you very fucking much. I happen to have some myself, which y’all are doing a fabulous job of traipsing over. I was a victim and all my friends who knew about it defended/stood by the other person because they were popular. I had to quit a hobby I loved for years because of it. I have lost countless friends over it, because for a long time, I wouldn’t be friends with anyone who knew anyone who knew the person. I was that triggered by the name, that it upsets me to think the name even though I won’t type it. But, to protect myself, I had to do some self care and not put myself in situations where I would encounter this person, their acquaintances, their name, or anything about the situation. Unfair to me? Maybe? But I don’t think so. It was the best choice for me since I hadn’t learned to cope enough to be able to deal with it at all.
NO ONE WANTS THIS SONG IN THE ROTATION.
NO ONE HAS EVER ADVOCATED FOR THIS SONG TO STAY IN THE ROTATION.
And since people don’t see how harsh things have been, jim has provided a great example of it. I’ll go through bit by bit.
“Unlike people who have chosen to see everything as being against them,” Meaning – he is gaslighting the idea that anyone has said anything negative about me or anyone else that isn’t on their side. Very much belittling any of my feelings. Remember – the person in the original post wasn’t actually present for the song and wasn’t actually hurt. But it’s SUPER ok to actually hurt people, as long as they’re not popular.
“KNOWING there would be this effort to cast THEM as the bad guys for
“restricting freedom of expression” or for making something out of
nothing.” Really? Has ANYONE EVER SAID that? Has anyone ever said anything negative about the OP? Has anyone ever said that she was making something out of nothing? I’ve been here for the whole conversation and the answer is no. People have questioned how far the policy will reach and at what point would it be considered censorship or restriction that was unnecessary, but not one has EVER EVER EVER said ANYTHING negative against the OP.
“This isn’t about the shame of being picked last for
kickball. That particular condition is hardly unique among our tribe,
and it’s one of the unifying forces.” Except some of us are still being picked last. And some people are great at justifying it. And sometimes emotional pain can be really severe too. But no one cares about that either apparently, not if they are causing it.
“Because it sure sounds like it’s the end of the world if we don’t allow
someone to sing that one song that we now know will put a non-zero part
of the audience into a full-blown panic attack. Where is the fun in
*knowingly* inflicting harm on someone else? What kind of sicko gets
their jollies doing that? (Answer: not someone I want in my tribe.)” Even though the statements preceding it about people wanting to keep the song in and wanting to abuse another person, the paragraph basically reads: If you don’t agree with everything carte blanche that we say, you don’t deserve to be part of our group. I don’t want you there. When again, it’s never been about wanting to keep a song in. It’s been about policy, how far it will go and implementation.
“Again, people trump songs. ” But clearly some people trump other people.
“It’s not difficult unless you make it so.” read: you are being difficult, you are the only one with a problem, you want to hurt people. You don’t belong here if you don’t fall in line.
It is difficult. There are more implications than just banning one song. Banning one song, fine, do it. How many songs to ban? How to choose them? How to vet them? How to apply it fairly? How to not cause further problems? How to ensure it gets carried forward? Should they be attached to a person for a particular cruise, or each cruise is there going to be a growing list of triggers that are personal for particular person who has long stopped participating? What if someone says any songs that reference sex are a trigger? It very well may be, but is it reasonable to take everything that references sex out? What if someone is triggered by low voices? Do men who are basses not get to participate in events?
I am no taking the issue lightly at all, but rather asking that people THINK about things before putting policies in place that are untenable and end up helping noone.