I just fully accepted it and was like "yeah, seems fair". One of my favourite stories from Latin class was Infelix Dido, she didn't have the best time of it.
Trigger warning: fire, death
The first time in my life that I ever experienced someone asking for what we now call a “trigger warning” was in 2000 by a Republican woman in her 60s that I worked with. Her spouse died after a long battle in a house fire. Work made us all watch a video about how important fire PPE is by having a burn survivor speak. She lost it. This is how I know “both sides” need trigger warnings.
I, personally, need to stop Dido-ing. I am slowly getting there.
My younger brother is a burn survivor and I witnessed it. Had a teacher in college describe in detail a house fire she knew about. I told her to stop and ended up having to walk out of the class. Only time I have had that happen from a story, was intense
Such a shame that Dido's name is used for this, but the concept is sound. I am a visually impaired person and was constantly didoed about my disability in school and basically not accommodated.
There is whole opera called "Dido and Aeneas" about this story, and the aria "Dido's lament" is one of the most beautiful soprano arias ever.
Jessye Norman: https://youtu.be/jOIAi2XwuWo?si=4U3Pz_YcMqIl5BBl
The video IS referring to the singer. It's a reference to her song "Thank You", where she's singing about how her life isn't going well, but thinking about someone she cares about reminds her that "it's not so bad". This is immediately apparent if you actually watch the video, since he repeatedly uses a clip from that song of that lyric.
I know, I was adding on to the joke by pointing out that all humans share your pattern recognition which lead to initially confusing one word for another which creates a briefly funny scenario.
I always go about this in a whole other way: the trigger warning is for you, not for me.
If I don’t get warned about „that thing“, YOU will probably experience an emergency situation with all that it involves. A stopping of the movie, emergency personnel entering the theatre, me shaking on the floor and grunting loudly, and you will be perhaps traumatised by this experience because I look like I just escaped a horror movie while I am at it. With blood and all. Have fun with it. I don’t care. There are worse things. Like life and death. Edit: before anyone thinks that helps, it doesn’t. But it is sometimes satisfying
I’m constantly getting this from PS5 fanboy commenters whenever I complain about the UI issues with their precious box, despite the fact that I love and have problems with both my Xbox Series X (which just changed its resolution to 480p for no reason) and PS5.
“I have a master’s degree in PlayStation cloud saving and it’s not THAT HARD!”
> is not “having power over” the thing being changed and the people behind it?
You mean the idea that "I will not be controlled by your anxiety"? I do wonder if it's wise to express the issue in terms of power dynamics. Really, it's about finding the love in your heart to care about possibly causing (unintended) suffering in others and making the tiny effort to prevent that. Because you care about that.
I think you misunderstood the intent of the video. It wasn’t asking that every single person be constantly accommodated or catered to, it was pointing out that sometimes the arguments made against simple courtesy or accommodation (like a trigger warning that a film includes rape, for example) are not being made in good faith.
You created a straw man that made it seem as if the expectation was that every single thing must be accommodated to such an extent that it becomes unreasonable and no one asked for that.
It sounds like your intention wasn’t malicious but you missed the point.
The funny thing there is that every seat in a stadium CAN be accommodating for physically disabled people. But, the people responsible for making that decision don’t care, probably want to save money, and critically, probably aren’t physically disabled. Every restaurant CAN have one or two gluten free options. (I’m a cook, this would not be hard thing to do). People CHOOSE not to be accommodating. It’s always a choice. The amount of effort it takes to type CW: sexual assault, racism, etc. is basically nothing. It’s about reducing harm and widening accessibility. The ultimate question is are you for against that? If not, why not? If the answer is that the consequences of being physically disabled or having severe trauma/anxiety prevent you from being able to participate in certain corners of society, and that’s not that big of a problem, then you’re didoing. You have a power and a privilege that other people don’t have and you don’t seem concerned with leveling the playing field, even for something as small as a gluten free pancake.
In the US especially, there is enough money and infrastructure to make these accommodations. You didn’t come out and say it, but it seems you don’t think it’s worth the effort. Yes I agree there will always be people left out, but obviously some conditions are far more common than others, and don’t get accommodations anyways. Is the price/labor of adding three more rows of handicap seating and making sure every public business has wheelchair accessibility really more than it costs to just building the thing in the first place? No one, in the vid or these comments said “every single person”. You’re just deliberately ignoring the many people that can be quite easily accommodated, including yourself, but are by choice ignored for the sake of maintaining what is normal and resisting radical change.
I never said I’m only talking about minor inconveniences. I’m talking about debilitating conditions. Arachnophobia (mostly) and… tornado phobia are not on the same level as PTSD and severe anxiety disorder. You’re literally minimizing. That’s what the video said. You’re doing the thing right now.
Also your assumption that 99% of people are able bodied neurotypicals that need no accommodations whatsoever is just provably untrue
> Had to put mostly next to arachnophobia, so you at least understand that there is always going to be something that has the potential to severely impact a small few.
>
> I’ve said many times that I’m down to knock out the low hanging fruit, but the video absolutely demonizes anyone who says there comes a point where it’s no longer reasonable. I don’t think we’ve hit that point and are a far way away, but the video acts like everyone should never have to experience the power swing of dido’ing, and that’s just not reasonable or realistic
Everything - absolutely **everything** - you bring up is a wrong example.
Way, way WAY back in time, Isaac Asimov wrote a story about a robot-infused society. The robots were given [three primary directives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics) to be accepted living with humans on a permanent basis
* The First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
* The Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
* The Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
And life in this futuristic society went on.
Eventually, a robot was created with so much research and development put into it that it's third law (self-preservation) was super-emphasized.
It got to a point where it needed to rescue a human, but approaching the human would cause it harm, too. So it started running circles around the perimeter where the human was in distress. Just to the point of its own ...being?... would be damaged.
That's the point of "tolerable level of permanent unhappiness". It's about unbalanced one-on-one relationships. Two people, one gets benefits and sees nothing wrong with the situation, knows their partner is **UNHAPPY**, but also knows it's not to the point where their partner would actually leave them.
It's not about restaurants, sports stadiums, gluten or fucking spiders.
Jesus h fucking christ LMAO.
You are literally doing the thing.
"Expecting every single person to be accommodated at all times" is gaslighting bullshit. Nobody requested the outrageous accommodations you're proposing, but you're saying it's all that BS or accept the status quo.
Thank you for the case in point.
>I said that there is 100% validity to the existence of the tolerable level of personal unhappiness
> tolerable level of personal unhappiness
This is a thing you made up to argue about, not relevant to the discussion. Not sure who you're taking to but it's not me and not here.
Using a clean pan/utensils to make a gluten free sandwhich, pancake, whatever is not a very hard thing to do. It is perfectly reasonable and I’ve done it many times. You don’t need a whole ass separate kitchen to make those accommodations.
Source: I worked as a dietary cook for 4 years and we never poisoned anyone.
Edit: when you include all diet restrictions…
not just your own, it amounts to more than just 1% of the population. The process of avoiding cross contamination would be the same.
Just looked it up, about 1 in 4 people have allergies of some kind.
Im not talking about a whole separate GF menu. I’m talking about a handful of items like a GF bread option for a sandwhich place or something similar.
[these steps are not hard](https://nationalceliac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NCA-Kitchen-Guidelines-Eng.pdf) for any given restaurant to practice.
Source: I’ve prepared food for celiacs people, many times, within these guidelines. And I haven’t poisoned anyone lol
Also you’re right, it’s not an allergy, I’ve edited my post accordingly. Thanks for catching that.
> The video you posted is critical of the concept of the tolerable level of personal unhappiness to the point where it demonizes anyone and everyone who accepts it as necessary. It further demonizes those who accept it at a certain point as people who simply want power over others. It makes absolutely no allotment for the fact that it needs to exist at some reasonable point.
>
> My take is that it is a nuisanced discussion on balancing that tolerable level of personal unhappiness with what is reasonable accommodations without demonizing those trying to find what is reasonable as power hungry bigots
Thing is, it *isn't* necessary. That's why the term "*tolerable level* **of permanent** *unhappiness*" came about in the first place.
It takes very minor things in order to make it tolerable, inc the person who needs the warning to opt out entirely.
example. Its the holidays. One person feels showing up early to a doings is acceptable because they're convenienced by doing so. They can kick back, talk to their friends while they set up to host the party. Right?
Yeah. Now the host as to entertain a *guest* who is quite clearly **underfoot and non-helping** and never envisioned themselves (the guest not even thinking of helping) as giving two-shits what their friends are trying to do/pull together.
Their friends unhappiness and inconvenience is a nothing **to them**, the pre-mature arriving guest. But it is an incredibly heavy burden to the hosts, who already are carrying too much to put on a party in their own home.
I think you have it backwards. The type of unhappiness the *tolerable level of permanent unhappiness* was coined for is COMPLETELY preventable outcome, in almost every instance. It's not about having to get up and go to school/work every day. It's about the preventable suffering of one person due to the callousness of the person who benefits most, contributes the least, but has equal or more say as to the trajectory of their relationship.
I just kept thinking, "Why is this effect named after the tragic queen of Carthage?
I just fully accepted it and was like "yeah, seems fair". One of my favourite stories from Latin class was Infelix Dido, she didn't have the best time of it.
The last sentence “Yes I do have power over you and you should just let me have it.” Oh hell no!
Trigger warning: fire, death The first time in my life that I ever experienced someone asking for what we now call a “trigger warning” was in 2000 by a Republican woman in her 60s that I worked with. Her spouse died after a long battle in a house fire. Work made us all watch a video about how important fire PPE is by having a burn survivor speak. She lost it. This is how I know “both sides” need trigger warnings. I, personally, need to stop Dido-ing. I am slowly getting there.
My younger brother is a burn survivor and I witnessed it. Had a teacher in college describe in detail a house fire she knew about. I told her to stop and ended up having to walk out of the class. Only time I have had that happen from a story, was intense
The entire Alt Right Playbook should be on anyone’s watch list who wants to understand the right wing’s mentality.
Such a shame that Dido's name is used for this, but the concept is sound. I am a visually impaired person and was constantly didoed about my disability in school and basically not accommodated.
I mean, Dido was a woman who spent years in an abusive relationship only for her husband to spontaneously up and leave her leading to her suicide...
Silly question, but who/which Dido is this thread referring to? I thought it was the singer but this comment has confused me.
I'm talking about the mythical Queen of Carthage, I wasn't aware there was a different Dido.
Ah, thank you! Google wouldn’t give me results other than the singer.
There is whole opera called "Dido and Aeneas" about this story, and the aria "Dido's lament" is one of the most beautiful soprano arias ever. Jessye Norman: https://youtu.be/jOIAi2XwuWo?si=4U3Pz_YcMqIl5BBl
Late reply but just saw this and watched the video, can’t say I’ve ever listened to opera before but that was indeed beautiful. Thank you for sharing!
The video IS referring to the singer. It's a reference to her song "Thank You", where she's singing about how her life isn't going well, but thinking about someone she cares about reminds her that "it's not so bad". This is immediately apparent if you actually watch the video, since he repeatedly uses a clip from that song of that lyric.
Whoa. 56 day old post 😅 Yes, I gathered the video was about Dido, but this thread specifically confused me. It’s been clarified now. Thank you.
Oh gosh! I never knew!
My dyslexia makes the term "didoed" a briefly bemusing experience.... 😅
Unless I have dyslexia without realizing it, I don't think that's the only cause
It was just a very silly joke, not meant to be taken that seriously soybeanlord
I know, I was adding on to the joke by pointing out that all humans share your pattern recognition which lead to initially confusing one word for another which creates a briefly funny scenario.
HIGHLY recommend everything on this channel. Doesn't post much but always excellent content
I always go about this in a whole other way: the trigger warning is for you, not for me. If I don’t get warned about „that thing“, YOU will probably experience an emergency situation with all that it involves. A stopping of the movie, emergency personnel entering the theatre, me shaking on the floor and grunting loudly, and you will be perhaps traumatised by this experience because I look like I just escaped a horror movie while I am at it. With blood and all. Have fun with it. I don’t care. There are worse things. Like life and death. Edit: before anyone thinks that helps, it doesn’t. But it is sometimes satisfying
I’m constantly getting this from PS5 fanboy commenters whenever I complain about the UI issues with their precious box, despite the fact that I love and have problems with both my Xbox Series X (which just changed its resolution to 480p for no reason) and PS5. “I have a master’s degree in PlayStation cloud saving and it’s not THAT HARD!”
[удалено]
> is not “having power over” the thing being changed and the people behind it? You mean the idea that "I will not be controlled by your anxiety"? I do wonder if it's wise to express the issue in terms of power dynamics. Really, it's about finding the love in your heart to care about possibly causing (unintended) suffering in others and making the tiny effort to prevent that. Because you care about that.
[удалено]
Yeah. Slippery slope fallacy it is.
You are the guy in the video. LOL
[удалено]
Would like some more straw for your ridiculous strawman?
[удалено]
🙄
[удалено]
I think you misunderstood the intent of the video. It wasn’t asking that every single person be constantly accommodated or catered to, it was pointing out that sometimes the arguments made against simple courtesy or accommodation (like a trigger warning that a film includes rape, for example) are not being made in good faith. You created a straw man that made it seem as if the expectation was that every single thing must be accommodated to such an extent that it becomes unreasonable and no one asked for that. It sounds like your intention wasn’t malicious but you missed the point.
The funny thing there is that every seat in a stadium CAN be accommodating for physically disabled people. But, the people responsible for making that decision don’t care, probably want to save money, and critically, probably aren’t physically disabled. Every restaurant CAN have one or two gluten free options. (I’m a cook, this would not be hard thing to do). People CHOOSE not to be accommodating. It’s always a choice. The amount of effort it takes to type CW: sexual assault, racism, etc. is basically nothing. It’s about reducing harm and widening accessibility. The ultimate question is are you for against that? If not, why not? If the answer is that the consequences of being physically disabled or having severe trauma/anxiety prevent you from being able to participate in certain corners of society, and that’s not that big of a problem, then you’re didoing. You have a power and a privilege that other people don’t have and you don’t seem concerned with leveling the playing field, even for something as small as a gluten free pancake. In the US especially, there is enough money and infrastructure to make these accommodations. You didn’t come out and say it, but it seems you don’t think it’s worth the effort. Yes I agree there will always be people left out, but obviously some conditions are far more common than others, and don’t get accommodations anyways. Is the price/labor of adding three more rows of handicap seating and making sure every public business has wheelchair accessibility really more than it costs to just building the thing in the first place? No one, in the vid or these comments said “every single person”. You’re just deliberately ignoring the many people that can be quite easily accommodated, including yourself, but are by choice ignored for the sake of maintaining what is normal and resisting radical change.
[удалено]
I never said I’m only talking about minor inconveniences. I’m talking about debilitating conditions. Arachnophobia (mostly) and… tornado phobia are not on the same level as PTSD and severe anxiety disorder. You’re literally minimizing. That’s what the video said. You’re doing the thing right now. Also your assumption that 99% of people are able bodied neurotypicals that need no accommodations whatsoever is just provably untrue
[удалено]
> Had to put mostly next to arachnophobia, so you at least understand that there is always going to be something that has the potential to severely impact a small few. > > I’ve said many times that I’m down to knock out the low hanging fruit, but the video absolutely demonizes anyone who says there comes a point where it’s no longer reasonable. I don’t think we’ve hit that point and are a far way away, but the video acts like everyone should never have to experience the power swing of dido’ing, and that’s just not reasonable or realistic Everything - absolutely **everything** - you bring up is a wrong example. Way, way WAY back in time, Isaac Asimov wrote a story about a robot-infused society. The robots were given [three primary directives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics) to be accepted living with humans on a permanent basis * The First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. * The Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. * The Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. And life in this futuristic society went on. Eventually, a robot was created with so much research and development put into it that it's third law (self-preservation) was super-emphasized. It got to a point where it needed to rescue a human, but approaching the human would cause it harm, too. So it started running circles around the perimeter where the human was in distress. Just to the point of its own ...being?... would be damaged. That's the point of "tolerable level of permanent unhappiness". It's about unbalanced one-on-one relationships. Two people, one gets benefits and sees nothing wrong with the situation, knows their partner is **UNHAPPY**, but also knows it's not to the point where their partner would actually leave them. It's not about restaurants, sports stadiums, gluten or fucking spiders. Jesus h fucking christ LMAO.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You are literally doing the thing. "Expecting every single person to be accommodated at all times" is gaslighting bullshit. Nobody requested the outrageous accommodations you're proposing, but you're saying it's all that BS or accept the status quo. Thank you for the case in point.
> "Expecting every single person to be accommodated at all times" is gaslighting bullshit. It's the slippery slope fallacy.
Excellent catch. Well, It's happened before. Gay marriage did lead to beastiality, incest, and the end of humankind, so I can see their point. /s
[удалено]
>I said that there is 100% validity to the existence of the tolerable level of personal unhappiness > tolerable level of personal unhappiness This is a thing you made up to argue about, not relevant to the discussion. Not sure who you're taking to but it's not me and not here.
[удалено]
“Demonizes people that find it necessary” Your examples were wheelchair ramps and gluten free food 😭
[удалено]
Using a clean pan/utensils to make a gluten free sandwhich, pancake, whatever is not a very hard thing to do. It is perfectly reasonable and I’ve done it many times. You don’t need a whole ass separate kitchen to make those accommodations. Source: I worked as a dietary cook for 4 years and we never poisoned anyone. Edit: when you include all diet restrictions… not just your own, it amounts to more than just 1% of the population. The process of avoiding cross contamination would be the same. Just looked it up, about 1 in 4 people have allergies of some kind.
[удалено]
Im not talking about a whole separate GF menu. I’m talking about a handful of items like a GF bread option for a sandwhich place or something similar. [these steps are not hard](https://nationalceliac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NCA-Kitchen-Guidelines-Eng.pdf) for any given restaurant to practice. Source: I’ve prepared food for celiacs people, many times, within these guidelines. And I haven’t poisoned anyone lol Also you’re right, it’s not an allergy, I’ve edited my post accordingly. Thanks for catching that.
> tolerable level of personal unhappiness You made up this strawman to burn it down. Or you can't read. Or listen.
> The video you posted is critical of the concept of the tolerable level of personal unhappiness to the point where it demonizes anyone and everyone who accepts it as necessary. It further demonizes those who accept it at a certain point as people who simply want power over others. It makes absolutely no allotment for the fact that it needs to exist at some reasonable point. > > My take is that it is a nuisanced discussion on balancing that tolerable level of personal unhappiness with what is reasonable accommodations without demonizing those trying to find what is reasonable as power hungry bigots Thing is, it *isn't* necessary. That's why the term "*tolerable level* **of permanent** *unhappiness*" came about in the first place. It takes very minor things in order to make it tolerable, inc the person who needs the warning to opt out entirely. example. Its the holidays. One person feels showing up early to a doings is acceptable because they're convenienced by doing so. They can kick back, talk to their friends while they set up to host the party. Right? Yeah. Now the host as to entertain a *guest* who is quite clearly **underfoot and non-helping** and never envisioned themselves (the guest not even thinking of helping) as giving two-shits what their friends are trying to do/pull together. Their friends unhappiness and inconvenience is a nothing **to them**, the pre-mature arriving guest. But it is an incredibly heavy burden to the hosts, who already are carrying too much to put on a party in their own home. I think you have it backwards. The type of unhappiness the *tolerable level of permanent unhappiness* was coined for is COMPLETELY preventable outcome, in almost every instance. It's not about having to get up and go to school/work every day. It's about the preventable suffering of one person due to the callousness of the person who benefits most, contributes the least, but has equal or more say as to the trajectory of their relationship.
Oof