Jon Rappoport: "Syed Farook and the New World of Emotional 'Triggers'"

An excerpt from Jon Rappoport's 12-5-15 article entitled "Syed Farook and the New World of Emotional 'Triggers'":

"Some brilliant media pundits are now suggesting that the accused San Bernardino shooter, Syed Farook, may have been 'triggered' by the Xmas party at the building he later attacked.

"You know, the existence of Xmas contributed to setting him off because his religious faith was of a different type. Xmas was a grave insult.

"There will be people, believe it or not, who think this 'analysis' has merit.

"'Well, sure, I can see that. Given the nature of his faith, it’s understandable that he would have left the party in a disturbed state, gone home, put on military gear, picked up a few auto weapons, a ton of ammo, and pipe bombs, waited for his wife to do the same, and then, on the spur of the moment, returned to the building…he was triggered.'

"'Triggered' is the new reality. It’s mainly for the young and naïve, especially those who are looking for a way to become known at colleges. 'Wow, I can get a few minutes of attention if I say I was triggered. I’ll go for it. It’s easy. I don’t have to do anything. I don’t have to achieve anything. This is all about not achieving anything. It’s a perfect excuse. I’m paralyzed. And the reason is, let’s see, I wasn’t warned by my professor that he was going to discuss a subject that had triggers in it. Yeah, I like it.'

"Apparently, there is no bottom for idiocy. You think you’ve seen the worst, but no.

"Yesterday, I included this quote from a New Yorker article. It’s worth re-reading:

"'Individual [Harvard law] students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.' (Jeannie Suk, The New Yorker, 12/15/14)

"There are several underlying principles at work here. One is: If you give people an out, an excuse for not doing anything, a way to become a victim, a significant number who aren’t genuinely disabled in any way will reach for it and grab it.

"And they’ll invent a back-story full of grievances. And traumas. And whatever it takes.

"This is a form of art. Theater. It may be bad art and bad theater, but there it is."

To read Rappoport's entire article, click HERE.

Now read this excerpt from Jacob Poushter's 11-20-15 article entitled "40% of Millennials OK with Limiting Speech Offensive to Minorities":

"American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

"We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK."

To read Poushter's entire article, click HERE.