Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 9:31 am
Of course The Guardian had to regurgitate the article. This is what the racial grievance industry amounts to - clicks for ads.
This gets better. I had wondered how the hell they had identified which of the recovered skeletons were black women of African ancestry. There was nothing in the BBC article to explain that, but The Guardian has offered further information.
They measured their skulls!
Oh boy, and there's more...
Apparently the BBC article did originally mention of phrenology techniques to identify the black African women, but the reference was later deleted.
Stowaway wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 11:56 pm
You realise that this is a spoof account, right?
The Bristol Airport account? I don't think so. The Titania McGrath tweet is just a comment (yes, from a spoof account run by the excellent Andrew Doyle) on what Bristol Airport did.
To be woke, or not be woke (yes, I know that’s not Macbeth)
Ah, good of GB News to give us all the heads-up on this.
As for trigger warnings at theatre productions, if some people feel they need them then I guess that's fair enough. But what annoys me is when theatres prominently display trigger warnings that effectively act as spoilers.
Why can't they display them in such a way that makes you aware that a trigger warning exists, and you can then choose to read it if you wish without disclosing it to those who still want to experience the shock and surprise?
“Wokeness” is a less interesting prism through which to view stuff like this, than the slow evolution/regression of audiences/readers/listeners into “paying customers/consumers” first, rather than people interested in art but who recognise that they aren’t entitled to enjoy or feel comfortable everything they watch.
Disagree with Dunners here; I think the trigger warnings *create* the need for them, and train people to need them, and to then be affected more if they weren’t warned, because they’re effectively conditioned to expect a heads up before being challenged.
“Wokeness” is pertinent a bit further down the line, IMO; it’s not really inherently a problem if a production chooses to use trigger warnings. The problem is what that decision does in a culture that is getting ever more polarised. The problem is when/of those people who apparently *need* (or at least, have started to actively welcome) trigger warnings, start to avoid art/entertainment that doesn’t have them, lest they be negatively affected by them.
And it’s one area where it can’t be had both ways: if trigger warnings are *not* a useless concept, that only serves the purpose of highlighting the moral virtues of those doing the cotton wall wrapping, then by implication, the *absence* of trigger warnings must be unsafe.
I wonder when the switch between content warnings stemming from right wing Puritanism such as “contains mild peril” or Simon Bates warning of “sexual swear words”, to left wing/progressives warning of content happened, and why it happened so easily?
As a side note, it’s f***ing frustrating when watching a series, and like, in the episode before a female character is about to go on a date, then before the next it’s “warning, the following programme contains scenes of rape and sexual assault”, or there’s an episode where a character’s world falls apart and he loses his job, im like “hmmm, interested in what happens next”, then “warning, the following contains scenes of suicide, drowning and bereavement”
My main gripe is when they spoil the plot. I get what you mean about the gradual conditioning and infantilising of audiences, but I think there can be situations where it's appropriate.
One example was a play I saw which involved a character taking their own life. It was intended to be a shocking and unexpected moment (a shotgun blast up into the roof of the mouth) that would pull the comfort blanket from under the feet of the audience and pivot the mood of the performance completely. But, a massive sign at the entrance doors to the main auditorium effectively told us all - whether we wanted to know or not - that something like this was going to happen.
I can understand that there will be some people whose lives have been affected by suicide. Knowing that the performance contains depiction of suicide will help inform their decision on whether to see it. And, if they do still choose to see it, they can be prepared. Also, theatres need to do all they can to accommodate audiences as they're struggling enough as it is. So I'd be perfectly happy with a compromise where, if you want to know what the trigger warning is, you can read it via an app, pressing the red button on your remote etc, or some other means.
Is there any evidence that trigger warnings are actually needed? How ever did we survive without them?
I suspect that if there were a way to opt-in to such warnings - by way of an app or a choice on the TV (like choosing to use subtitles etc), then obviously there'd be a way of measuring uptake - which I suspect would be miniscule.
StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:38 am
Is there any evidence that trigger warnings are actually needed? How ever did we survive without them?
No, but like most things of this type, once you start down that road it's very difficult to go back. The argument is always, even if it's only to make a miniscule number of people happy, why would you not want to make such a small gesture (unless you're a horrible person)?
However, it needn't be a big deal if they are on an opt-in basis.
StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:38 am
Is there any evidence that trigger warnings are actually needed? How ever did we survive without them?
I suspect that if there were a way to opt-in to such warnings - by way of an app or a choice on the TV (like choosing to use subtitles etc), then obviously there'd be a way of measuring uptake - which I suspect would be miniscule.
Yes, I think it’s an example of where people think *others* need them, and so like the principle, rather than ever feeling like “phew, im glad I was prepared”
The opt in system makes sense and I can’t think of a great argument against it.
I remember watching LOST with my then housemate, we rented a place together as she started rebuilding her life after her husband took his own life through hanging. We binged through the whole series, then there was an episode where a main character hangs himself. She was not in a great way psychologically at the time, but her take on it was that the bad thing was the thing that actually happened. Occasional reminders that it happened were just something she couldn’t insulate herself from, and didn’t really want to
I don't consume a lot of art or tv, so haven't seen any of these trigger warnings. Are they really that prevalent?
(The only things I ever see/hear are the 'If you were affected by these issues' comments at the end of programmes like Eastenders, and the 'Are you over 18?' question before visiting certain websites).
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:48 am
I don't consume a lot of art or tv, so haven't seen any of these trigger warnings. Are they really that prevalent?
In theatres they are. You may not see them so much at mainstream/West End productions, but in the off-West End venues you risk banging your head on them.
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:48 am
I don't consume a lot of art or tv, so haven't seen any of these trigger warnings. Are they really that prevalent?
(The only things I ever see/hear are the 'If you were affected by these issues' comments at the end of programmes like Eastenders, and the 'Are you over 18?' question before visiting certain websites).
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:48 am
I don't consume a lot of art or tv, so haven't seen any of these trigger warnings. Are they really that prevalent?
(The only things I ever see/hear are the 'If you were affected by these issues' comments at the end of programmes like Eastenders, and the 'Are you over 18?' question before visiting certain websites).
It depends. They’re not “mainstream” yet, but where they are placed is in areas where they are flashpoints for culture war stuff, and where they are normalised for communities who then treat them as essential and go to bat for them.
Eg; Young Adult novels, tumblr blogs, sci fi, doctor who.
There’s also a subculture thing that’s kind of a young, self diagnosed autistic equivalent to the weird Christian right wing sites that used to review movies based on how wholesome they were for a Christian audience, where blogs will pretty much have a proscribed list of media/entertainment/books that are problematic and should not be read/viewed on the spurious basis of some blogger taking issue with the piece or the creator, and slapping a trigger warning on it
For example - ignoring the bigger JK Rowling debate - were she to be a new writer, just published her first book, influential bloggers would quote happily slap “trigger warning - antisemitism” on a review of her book, and it would thereafter become a red flag within the community to have ignored that trigger warning. Obvs Rowling got in before it all started, but many YA writers are terrified and often paralysed by the potential for their work to be reviewed as problematic, hence the rise of sensitivity readers
That's a good point. It's like when Francis Barber was staring in the West End production of Unfriend. She had dared to wade into the Trans debate with a viewpoint that was not aligned with the Purple Haired Brigade. A result was not only for a whole section of the theatre community to feel compelled to have nothing to do with the play (going so far as to even refuse to review it), but to then pass judgement on anyone who still did as being "problematic".
Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 10:49 am
This gets better. I had wondered how the hell they had identified which of the recovered skeletons were black women of African ancestry. There was nothing in the BBC article to explain that, but The Guardian has offered further information.
They measured their skulls!
"The approach, the researchers say, is an established forensic tool, and is not based on controversial methods involving cranial measurements."
No, no - when we do it it's not controversial!
Yeah they’ve not done themselves any favours here.
Unless I’ve misunderstood (highly possible), there are statistical geographical trends in skull shape that help forensic anthropologists to determine a person’s ancestry from their remains.
Phrenology is a debunked and racist Victorian pseudoscience where skull shape was wrongly believed to be inextricably linked to inferior intelligence/personality.
Might have been wise for them to actually explain rather than just waving it away.
Yeah, I was just reading the article and noticed that. If your going to write an article that some kids are offended by a nudie painting, not explaining why is just going to be worse than the actual explanation.
Look at this post on Facebook 
