Here both the Friday and Monday are public holidays
Yes. The details vary from state to state, but the basic concept of "stille Feiertage" where everybody has to respect the Christian wish for, well, solemnity spans the entire nation. [ . . . ]
Literally "interdiction to dance", actually a ban on public events ranging from "dancing/music and sports" to "OK, we'll allow gastronomy, for one, but no music playing there!"
Thanks, both of you.
Much as I often think the USA is so imbued with Christianity that many people don't even notice that it is, a ban on anybody dancing in public in an entire state because Christians (or anybody else) wanted to be solemn on that day wouldn't wash. And neither Good Friday nor Easter Monday are public holidays. Easter isn't either; but I suspect that's because it always falls on a Sunday, and here "public holiday" means only that government offices and jobs are closed down, which they are anyway on Sundays. Christmas is our only legal holiday that's explicitly based on a religious celebration, but I think that if Easter changed days of the week it probably would have been also.
[ETA: Of course Sunday closures are also originally religious; but they're pretty much down to optional except for government offices, and most people are in favor of The Weekend theoretically off work for secular reasons, though fewer and fewer people actually get that.)
I am here because of SSSS yet I'm not here for SSSS.
This community seems to be one of those hidden oasis you sometimes stumble upon in the vast wilderness of the internet full of thoughtful, caring people. That's rare. And as far as I can tell a big center of gravity of the forums is lies in storytelling, art, and languages, with a dash of roleplaying; all things I cherish and don't get enough of.
Is that odd to say I'm looking forward to see the post-SSSS era? There's always the danger of this fizzling out, but there's the chance of it becoming something else. I'm curious about what it'll be—and I must admit that after this incident hanging around makes me uncomfortable.
I also post on the Straight Dope boards. Recently, there was a thread on those boards asking what other surviving message boards people thought were worth going to. And I thought immediately of this forum; but I thought, also, that I wasn't sure I wanted to recommend a board that in its origins and title was focussed on a particular comic and on its author, when that author has been behaving in a fashion that would cause controversy over there also. (Warning: if you go look at Straight Dope, for reasons utterly unclear to me a significant number of people over there seem to find it important to be able to swear, including sometimes in thread titles. Also there is sometimes quite a bit of controversy.) I almost wound up posting to recommend this forum but with a warning about the comic, but while I was trying to think about wording it the thread dropped out of current use and at least so far I haven't resurrected it.
It seems like everyone can agree that we should respect people's physical health and their choices regarding that. If we physically hurt someone, or feed them something they can't/are opposed to consuming, we apologize. I think that's universally considered good behavior.
I wish that it were. But there very unfortunately are people who will feed hidden meat to vegetarians, or hidden ingredients to people who are avoiding them for health reasons, on the grounds that they think the people doing the avoiding shouldn't be doing that.
Someone (not Minna) actually said in the stream that people just need to take responsibility for what they read. This was an argument against trigger warnings.
As you say: that's an argument for warnings, not against them; because it's not possible to take responsibility if you've got no idea what's in there.
Quite a lot of the people sneering at content warnings are the same people who were arguing vehemently for warnings (if not outright prohibitions) on movies, magazines, etc. with sexual content; or even with non-sexual human nudity.
I also came up with an analogy for this.
I think that alcohol analogy is actually a pretty good analogy, and will point out another way that it works, in addition to what's already been pointed out: Some people avoid alcohol for religious reasons, even if it wouldn't do them physically any harm.
To be honest, considering some trigger warnings I have encountered, I'm not sure how someone who needs such warnings can deal with many ordinary news stories. B
Some people can't deal with ordinary news stories. (I'm not sure any of us could deal with some of them and still function, except by having a sort of shunt in our brains that takes the edge off.)
But I also think that a lot of the problem may be in how people understand the phrasing "trigger warnings", which seems to generally be the term used by people objecting to them, though people using them often (not always) seem to use "content warnings" instead. I think that some see/hear the phrase "trigger warnings" and think 'people are saying that if they ever happen to read/see this they'll be thrown entirely for a loop and may be seriously long-term injured!' and while yes, for a relatively small number this can be true, for a much larger number of people the usefulness of the warning is not so they can be permanently protected from whatever's being described, but so that they can choose whether to deal with it at that particular moment and/or in that particular format. Expecting to see arachnids in a biology course with that on the syllabus is one thing; going to have lunch with somebody you think is a friend and finding them all over the tablecloth would be something else entirely. It might well be worth it to you overall to take the biology course, even if you never want to have lunch with that person again.
I guess we can all predict how that'll go in the long run: She'll find that she did nonetheless, because people will start to take her name on it as a trigger warning.
That's a very good point.