You cannot possibly say that the alt-right has vulgarized the term "triggering" to prevent demagogues like Donald Trump from taking the office of the most powerful nation in the world. Makes sense, right?
No, not in the least. It's a stunning level of red herring, so much so that it makes rational people stop and go "what the **** does that have to do with
anything?" Much less the discussion actually at hand in this thread, which had nothing to do with the alt-right devaluing triggering, and everything to do with what triggering is and why the word is used at all. Joshua never mentioned the alt-right or Trump in his posts, you may have noticed.
In other words, what the **** you do you think you're proving by shifting the goalposts like that?
This is why I don't engage in politics on the forum for the most part on these forums. Too much of a "liberal" echo chamber ending ine a certain liberalism of definitions.
No doubt I will get hounded for this, but lets look at what someone who use to identify as being on the left of politics has to say.
Ladies, gentleman, shivans and zods (is that racist towards vasudans?), I present Sargon of Akkad!
This is kind of hilarious, first in that you'd bring up poor old Sargon who thinks anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky was a "classic liberal" (classical liberalism would roughly equate to libertarianism) and is
a known fraudster, stealing the money of his Gamergate buddies, second in that you have to argue a "liberalism of definitions" to explain why you're not posting.
Like definitions are somehow that flexible, or indeed that politicized. Even the Soviet Union would invent new ways of speaking that meant something new rather than actually attempt to change the definition wholly. I supposed, if your argument is you're being oppressed Soviet-style, you could believe that.
But it is an argument that even a cursory glance around you would make hard to sustain. I don't see Sargon being thrown in Lubyanka, even though he has actually committed a crime.
