|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Template talk:Triggered
Title[edit]
Any reason this exists, other than "I don't want to answer you, so i'll accuse you of being oversensitive"? Bicyclewheel
17:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Bicycle Wheel. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))
(talk • stalk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It exists, like much content here, because it can. At RationalWiki, we live and let live. It's a funny picture from a funny man — a feminist and opponent of the alt-right, no less — a picture he's expressely allowed to be utilized under fair use (being the great fair use champion that Ethan Klein is). Please let my edit summary for creating it ring true: "Today's lesson is: have a sense of humor." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- that's not really what I was looking for. what's the justification beyond I felt like it? It seems like we have to accept your sense of humour, and it's our problem if we don't. I don't care who created it or what his credentials are, you're using it to attack people who disagree with you, and in a way that doesn't make you look good. Bicyclewheel
17:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry about that, of course. But let's scope the situation: an angry sockpuppet calls me out as "sexist and ageist" because I used the incredibly demeaning slur "get with the times, grandpa" to his other sock, who was shaking his fist going on about "9 years ago" as a reason to keep edit warring. Instead of talkpaging nicely, like I asked him to several times. And furthermore, since we're making the valid point about how we shouldn't be dicks to each other, what's your take on this type of language? Is that OK, you think? I only ask because I know you're a decent person, as am I, and because it concerns me to see that you're arguing on the side of two concern trolling sockpuppets belonging to Conscience. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have an issue with a troll, my opinion is to act civilly and present yourself in a mature manner. If you have an issue with a troll bring it up in the coop. Mirroring a troll's behavior that you don't like is only going to escalate the situation and create a scene. In my opinion, this template serves as a means for the poster to be passive aggressive while posting no content that is constructive to the conversation. Talk pages are for talking after all. —(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talk • stalk) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have an issue with a troll, my opinion is to act civilly and present yourself in a mature manner. If you have an issue with a troll bring it up in the coop. Mirroring a troll's behavior that you don't like is only going to escalate the situation and create a scene. In my opinion, this template serves as a means for the poster to be passive aggressive while posting no content that is constructive to the conversation. Talk pages are for talking after all. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))
- Well, I'm sorry about that, of course. But let's scope the situation: an angry sockpuppet calls me out as "sexist and ageist" because I used the incredibly demeaning slur "get with the times, grandpa" to his other sock, who was shaking his fist going on about "9 years ago" as a reason to keep edit warring. Instead of talkpaging nicely, like I asked him to several times. And furthermore, since we're making the valid point about how we shouldn't be dicks to each other, what's your take on this type of language? Is that OK, you think? I only ask because I know you're a decent person, as am I, and because it concerns me to see that you're arguing on the side of two concern trolling sockpuppets belonging to Conscience. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK you're not interested in defending why you made this template, so I'll go elsewhere. Bicyclewheel 18:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Again we see how easy it is to dismiss someone with accusations of being "socks" and "concern trolls". So lazy. The obvious purpose of this template is to troll people you disagree with. I do literally mean troll because your only purpose is to taunt and elicit a negative response, as you did several times on the template:sexuality page. You've got nothing substantive to say, so why continue digging a hole? Ë. (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, User:Reverend Black Percy is the only person who uses this template. I haven't checked all the instances, but every one I have checked (more than half) was by the same person. I agree that this template avoids serious discussion, take Talk:Islamophobia for instance. That comment hardly seemed "triggered" to me. —Kazitor, pending 10:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
A fundamental question[edit]
Should RationalWiki have templates that serve as auto-rebuttals? Examples:
{{triggered}}:
{{DFTT|concern}}:
{{DFTT}}:
{{RATIONALWiki}}: "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
They presumably both stifle discussion (in that they don't explicitly explain why, eg, the person is "triggered") and allow easier discussion (through quick templating). Which is more important?
Any insults in this section will be collapsed. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)