There are a great many things in this world that one might disagree with. I come up with some of these reasonably regularly. I find as I get old, they perhaps occur more readily. An easy example is mayonnaise. Who puts mayonnaise on a hamburger? That is downright wrong, on a variety of levels. I need not go into detail, certainly, everyone gets this incongruity without explanation. When someone puts mayonnaise on my burger, I find myself troubled. I learned recently that the kids today would say I have been "triggered."
But maybe mayonnaise is not the best example. The Urban Dictionary says "triggered" means
"An emotional/psychological reaction caused by something that somehow relates to an upsetting time or happening in someone's life. This reaction is often found to happen in war veterans, people suffering with PTSD, depression, and other mental disorders."
Well, thus it might be a serious something. I have never been to war, but I am doubting that my mayonnaise-on-a-burger aversion rises to that level.
The British Broadcasting Corporation reported recently on a college professor (a learned and capable professional by definition) who had approached "an information stall run by" some students on campus. These students held views with which the professor disagreed, let's say "significantly." The professor responded to their pamphlets (speech) by labeling their words "violent" and accused those staffing the booth of "triggering my students." The professor was, to be fair, troubled by the speech.
The professor allegedly next engaged "In an expletive-filled rant." When you wish to prove a point, expletives may be your friend. See Credibility from Vulgarity (October 2021). But it is also possible that when you swear at someone they will be less persuaded and more offended. Take your chances. This professor insisted that the students "remove" their speech and then resorted to "shov(ing) pamphlets off the table before walking away."
Depending on how you define violence, that professorial response tirade was perhaps closer to the definition than the speech involved.
There was a video of the encounter. Go figure, right? There is a video of everything these days. See Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021). Well, some reporters saw the video and decided that they would interview the professor to better refine and understand the views so adamantly (violently?) expressed. They approached the professor's home, but the professor was apparently not so eager to conversate.
In fact, there is some allegation that the professor "held (a) machete to the reporter's neck" after opening the door. Allegedly the professor "shouted," expressed a potential to "chop you up with this machete," and finally, the professor reportedly "followed them (reporters) onto the street with the machete." I am reasonably reserved most of the time, but a knife to my throat might just trigger me.
Depending on how you define violence, that professorial response (weapons and threats) was likewise perhaps closer to the definition than the student speech involved.
Apparently, the school did not see the humor in the professor's actions. Whether because the professor assaulted the students over their speech or because the professor threatened people with a weapon and violence (depending on your definition, of course), the college "relieved" the professor "of . . . duties . . . effective immediately." Isn't that a fine how-do-you-do?
After all, the professor was "triggered" by that speech that troubled the teacher's sensibilities to begin with.
If you are triggered, any response is OK, right? We all have an absolute right to live our lives without ever being offended, right?
More recently, a state senator was at a shopping mall when he perceived a bumper sticker with which the senator did not concur. Being a professional in the art of debate and compromise, the official engaged that speech. Allegedly, this included scratching the paint on the vehicle bearing the triggering speech ("keying a car"), according to the Boston Globe. I have to be careful with phrases like "keying a car" as that term has lost some acceptance or relevance in the age of fobs and other electronic vehicle access tools. The phrases of yesterday may be difficult for today.
When confronted, the senator "initially denied keying the man’s car." The senator "later . . . acknowledged" doing so. The senator apparently, allegedly, then explained that this was a self-defense car-keying and the senator destroyed someone's property because the senator "felt . . . threatened by the man." Or, by the man's speech (sticker)? If the senator were more hip, perhaps "triggered?"
I struggle with these two examples. There is apparently some belief that if someone utters a phrase that one finds troubling it is fine to respond to that speech with force and violence (depending on your definition). That someone has uttered a "discouraging word" is somehow an excuse for tantrum, outburst, frenzy, or worse. It is O.K. because we were "triggered," essentially meaning we encountered something that does not conform to our personal outlook.
I get it. Who has not been confronted with some "roll tide," "ole, ole, ole, ole," "hoddy toddy," or worse? The result may be beyond our control. These words may frighten us, anger us, and perhaps simply relieve us of our senses. We may be "triggered" beyond rational thought or control. Or, perhaps they are just words. And as Justice Louis Brandeis said, “the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Or, as my kindergarten teacher kept reminding the handsies and the biters, "use your words." Yes, I remember Kindergarten. Back to our college professor, one of the students assaulted by the poor triggered professor suggested that professors should "respect their students and their rights." There was suggestion that the professorial display was a poor example for others and that instead "Students should be taught how to peacefully exchange ideas with each other and professional staff." Imagine that, a world in which disagreements are discussed and debated without child-like antics and violence.
I can honestly say that 20 years of teaching college has afforded me many opportunities to convey knowledge, encourage critical thinking, and facilitate growth. Without question, I have heard a great deal in classrooms with which I disagree. As certainly, I have learned a great deal from my students and am grateful for them and their thoughts. I have often found I disagree with their opinions and conclusions. I have never assaulted one though. The thoughts of the student above are gems. There is always room to listen to others. When there is no room, walk away.
There is no requirement of acquiesence or agreement. There is no necessity of silence or disengagement. By all means, engage. By all means, say your peace. Rent a billboard if you must. By all means, however, keep your hands and keys to yourself. And, more importantly, keep your machete to yourself. There is no room in our society for violence. That is a simple start.
As important, words can be hurtful, disagreeable, and noxious. But they are words. I hear and see things daily I disagree with. If words are triggering to the point of violence, perhaps one needs someone with whom to discuss the world in a more global sense? Being "triggered" is not an excuse, license, or forgiveness. It is a weak-minded justification for poor behavior, and expressing it is merely sad.
As my generation said for years, "stick and stones, yadda, yadda, yadda." There is no benefit in ranting or yelling. There is no benefit in destroying people's pamphlets or vehicles or necks. Violence begets violence. If you find you are somehow triggered by the beliefs and words of others, pause a minute and consider whether they are likely just as triggered by your words. They are, they are just not expressing it through vitriol and violence as their maturity exceeds yours.
Strive to grasp that they will perhaps never adopt your views, nor you theirs. Accept that differences may persist. We must each understand that. If violence is the answer you arrive at, it was likely a poorly phrased and conceived (dumb) question.
And remember, always, that violence does not prove your point. It does not set an appropriate example. It does not advance your cause. It does not flatter you. And if you aren't really careful, it may well land you in hot water explaining your definition of violence and triggering to a judge that lacks the sense of humor and patience you might seek or your machete might demand.
To be clear, judges get to read a great many depositions in the deciding of cases. Keep in mind when you are at such a deposition, the court reporter will take down all that is said. If you lose your cool (or your mind), that may come through loud and clear in the transcript. Does that persuade? Does that advance your cause? Or does trench warfare with your opponent merely lead to all parties being upset, triggered, and ineffective? Invective, vitriol, and anger have not place regardless of your vehement disagreement with the witness, your perception of being triggered, or your sanctimonious diatribe.
Use your words. Be offended. Know that others around you are just as offended, they are just not showing it. Keep your hands to yourself. Don't threaten others with violence. Life it too short. Your mom was wrong, you are not special. We all face things we dislike. Confront them, speak, discuss, debate, and keep your hands to yourself.
