Of course it is. People at large don’t care if their social media goes to shit. They’re going to keep using it and complaining about it even as it gets worse and worse.

This sounds like a plausible thing that actually happened.

Kind of seems like a contradiction

They don’t care. There’s no point in calling conservatives out on hypocrisy. Only a very small number of them will give a shit, and those will be the ones who were already having doubts.

What do you propose as the solution, then? Without any up-front disclosure of the triggering content being present, how can anybody make the choice whether or not to expose themself to it?

There’s evidence that trigger warnings actually worsen anxiety and are counterproductive

I’d be interested in seeing these studies.

The way to treat anxiety is to face the source of anxiety to try and change your relationship and reaction. The best way to do this is via controlled access that exposes one to the trigger gradually in a context that has no risk of harm (eg a media depiction, discussing the concept, building up to discussing the source of trauma that led to the phobic response if applicable)

Trigger warnings enable active avoidance. This sensitizes one to the aversive stimuli and makes the phobic response stronger. As a result when one encounters the stimulus (eg a friend, family, celebrity etc commits suicide, suffers an eating disorder, etc) your resilience to the trigger is now even lower and the response is more likely to be more significant than it was before.

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. Controlled access in a safe setting like a media depiction sounds great. That’s exactly what trigger warnings are for. How can you possibly do controlled exposure without knowing if the content is there or not?

Trigger warnings enable active avoidance.

Incorrect. Trigger warnings inform you that the content is present in the media you’re about to watch. What you do with that information is up to you.

I was reading Matt Parker’s new trigonometry book and they made some remark about triangles in spherical geometry and I went “wait, what if you did this”

They’re not curved; the space they’re embedded in is curved.

I didn’t even think of that. Another good question!

I’m not asking about a Dorito shape.

I don’t think that can be a thing.

I’m serious. I want to know exactly what OP is imagining would happen.

How do you envision that going, exactly?

Nah. Someone lamenting that the world is unfair and needs to change does not need to be reminded that the world is unfair.

What’s the benefit of leaving your house?

Where do you slot ADHD folks in the autism vs allism spectrum

???

ADHD is orthogonal to autism. You can be autistic with ADHD or allistic with ADHD.

But my original comment still remains the use of allism generally comes with a negative connotation. Whether that’s part of the denotation makes no difference.

You’re reading connotations that aren’t there. This is a community of autistic people. We don’t do that “say one thing but mean another” thing.

If you don’t want us using the word “allism”, should we also not use “autism”? The real divide comes from having a word for one group but not the other.

Everyone knows that, though. So what’s the point of saying it when someone is trying to make things more fair?

“Grow up and live in the real world” / “Life’s not fair” / other thought-terminating cliches used to shut down anyone who wants the world to be a better place than it is. Like, I fucking know it’s an unfair place. The whole point is that I would like for it to be less unfair.

Pay a human to draw it for you.

My bad, I was only thinking of my own experience. Cool that peas are so cheep though!