I guess I need some perspective here. Or at least some input.

I've noticed that when watching UM (both Stack and Farina) on Amazon Prime, there are what amount to be trigger warnings if there's a gender dysphoria (potentially F64.x) matter.

Yet the murders, suicides, kidnappings, bombings, rapes, robberies, unexplained missing persons cases? Some with graphic details and even photos and/or re-enactments? Nothing aside from the little 90s TV rating (i.e. TV-MA) and a brief list of topics (i.e. smoking, violence, alcohol use). Not a full stop trigger warning about how it was wrong but being streamed as originally aired.

The murder of Ethel Kidd does not get a special trigger warning but the fraud of Jerry Dean Michael does??? Doesn't the former seem more deserving of such a warning than the latter? I'd prefer no such warnings but come on. This is ridiculous.

I choose to watch something, it's on me if I'm "triggered" not on them. I usually roll my eyes at those warnings. Sometimes if I don't know what a movie is about I might try to read a few reviews and sometimes I'm alerted to something I know I don't want to see so I skip it. But again, that's on me. I take the responsibility. Anything could in theory "trigger" a person so they can't put the warning on everything.

Eye rolling here.

The one that makes me laugh is the "Smoking" one..

I mean, the flashing lights is.. Ok.. I know, epileptics, so, at least there's some logic there. But the ones that put up a warning about people smoking.

Now, apparently not only do people think you can get cancer from secondhand smoke, but you can get it secondhand through a TV screen..

Think about that one.. How overwhelmed with hate for something do you have to be to need to be warned that you'll see it on TV? That's not a warning for parents that their kids might see smoking, either.

LOL, oh the horror. If it's triggering, just turn it off. It's not hard.

I guess I need some perspective here. Or at least some input.

I've noticed that when watching UM (both Stack and Farina) on Amazon Prime, there are what amount to be trigger warnings if there's a gender dysphoria (potentially F64.x) matter.

Yet the murders, suicides, kidnappings, bombings, rapes, robberies, unexplained missing persons cases? Some with graphic details and even photos and/or re-enactments? Nothing aside from the little 90s TV rating (i.e. TV-MA) and a brief list of topics (i.e. smoking, violence, alcohol use). Not a full stop trigger warning about how it was wrong but being streamed as originally aired.

The murder of Ethel Kidd does not get a special trigger warning but the fraud of Jerry Dean Michael does??? Doesn't the former seem more deserving of such a warning than the latter? I'd prefer no such warnings but come on. This is ridiculous.

Huh. I watch on YouTube, and the only warnings I see are the episodes that have self-harm (ex. Philip Taylor Kramer).

Huh. I watch on YouTube, and the only warnings I see are the episodes that have self-harm (ex. Philip Taylor Kramer).
Hmm, I see it when viewing via Amazon Prime. Usually using a dedicated streaming device but also web browsers. While maybe not technically a trigger warning, still, it seems oddly selective and political.

Re: Judith Hyams: "For a young woman to be pregnant and unmarried is nearly always a disturbing and unsettling prospect." No such message about that? Again, oddly selective and political. Just wish these were cut altogether.

[A good point in another reply about warnings for display elements that could cause an epileptic seizure. I'm on board with that.]

Hmm, I see it when viewing via Amazon Prime. Usually using a dedicated streaming device but also web browsers. While maybe not technically a trigger warning, still, it seems oddly selective and political.

Re: Judith Hyams: "For a young woman to be pregnant and unmarried is nearly always a disturbing and unsettling prospect." No such message about that? Again, oddly selective and political. Just wish these were cut altogether.

[A good point in another reply about warnings for display elements that could cause an epileptic seizure. I'm on board with that.]


Half of us here probably need a trigger warning for when the "Magic Rock" episode is going to air.

All this being said.. Look.. Trigger warnings are better than the alternative.. Editing things out after the fact. Like when Spielberg edited ET to change guns to walkie talkies.

Shaking my head at what things are coming to.

Who decides what needs a trigger warning or what was wrong then or wrong now?

Who decides what needs a trigger warning or what was wrong then or wrong now?


I'm more triggered by trigger warnings because they're basically useless. :D

I've seen almost this exact warning in front of certain classic Muppet Show episodes on Disney+ (usually for portraying racial stereotypes). It has the same "wrong then, wrong now" verbiage. That wording is a bit triggering in itself because as others have mentioned, I don't think warnings should have arbitrary opinions.

The content "may be offensive to some viewers, discretion advised" is one that's been around a long time (usually applies to "foul" language and violence). That I have less of an issue with, as it's factual - some viewers will indeed be offended, though I would hope that most of us have the capacity to put the content in the context of its own time period.

This kind of thing seems to be spreading like wildfire. They're now going to be putting warnings in front of 1960s James Bond films in the UK, and I'd think it will happen in America too. All the more reason we should not be so quick to abandon physical media. Not to sound hysterical, as at this point it is only a warning and the content is unedited, but I'd think any company who has the right to distribute streaming can certainly edit it how they see fit, especially under intense pressure from certain online advocacy groups who will label them as anti-this or anti-that if they won't relent to their demands.

Phew, seems like it's not just me. Thanks for your replies, fellow fans. I just don't want the thread to start trending too politically because that's not what this forum is for. However, in this case, the way it's crept in to UM? I had to say something.

And I could use a trigger warning for Georgia Rudolph, myself. "Warning: The following segment is likely to directly contribute to cerebral atrophy. Viewer discretion is advised."

I watch on Amazon Prime and never get any of those stupid warnings. It's mostly hollow virtue signaling. UM went out of their way to be as inoffensive as possible and it was ahead of its time in ways that they presented certain segments (Debbie in North Carolina comes to mind).

I like to put Unsolved Mysteries on YouTube while I sleep, and all too often I wake up to find the screen has shut off because it was paused on the self-harm disclaimer that requires me to physically interact with it to confirm that I can handle suicide, which I can't do because I'm asleep. :sleep2:

Is there a way to permanently opt in through some setting? It just seems loony that I have to click through each time.

No offense to the original poster, but who cares?

It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, to quote Thomas Jefferson. The warning is to protect themselves from legal challenges. Just tune it out.

No offense to the original poster, but who cares?

It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, to quote Thomas Jefferson. The warning is to protect themselves from legal challenges. Just tune it out.

That part.

Trigger warnings are better than the alternative.. Editing things out after the fact. Like when Spielberg edited ET to change guns to walkie talkies.

All the more reason we should not be so quick to abandon physical media. Not to sound hysterical, as at this point it is only a warning and the content is unedited, but I'd think any company who has the right to distribute streaming can certainly edit it how they see fit, especially under intense pressure from certain online advocacy groups who will label them as anti-this or anti-that if they won't relent to their demands.

The point about physical media is spot on. This is exactly why we need physical media, to prevent content from being edited or erased in the blink of an eye.

The problem with these kind of warnings is precisely that they are not an alternative to, but rather a complement of, making content unavailable entirely. One day its a pointless warning, the next day its not there at all.

The original Unsolved Mysteries is already unavailable as it is, that ought to serve as a cautionary tale about how a series that was on national television can simply be removed from existence.

No offense to the original poster, but who cares?

It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, to quote Thomas Jefferson. The warning is to protect themselves from legal challenges. Just tune it out.

I care. One of the many reasons I still regularly watch retro UM is to "tune out" the hyper-polarized and political content seemingly saturated in so much else. Then we see this sort of thing popping up. Yes, maybe a 5-10 second screen, on, oh, a few episodes. Not exactly sure how many, but, certainly not many at all. Fewer than ten? It's not ruining my credit score or causing me to go bald. But, why is it there to begin with? Don't you see a slippery slope problem here? What's next?

The arbitrary and political elements, too, bother me. I don't know if you saw and/or chose to ignore my quote of Stack's rough and unfair remarks in the Judith Hyams segment about being a single mother. And/or the brutal nature of Ethel Kidd's murder. Neither have such woke pre-messages in streaming episodes. But the fraudster behind "The Dale" has one (and there are others). The late Hyams is owed an apologetic message 100x more than Michael.

The more we "tune out" such things, the greater the possibility for Orwellian consequences. First it's something as basic as this, then, a bit more. And a bit more. I guess I could also "tune out" Roald Dahl being re-written while at it. I will not. It's all brain-numbing and there's no empirical evidence that this type of content revision (to be polite) helps anybody.

Also, legal challenges?? Seriously? You really think the estate and/or relatives of Camilla Lyman would pursue legitimate legal action against Cosgrove-Meurer should such a message not appear in a streaming re-run episode of a television show from so long ago? Give me a break. My keyboard almost wept a moment ago, having to cite the lunacy of such a concern. Legal challenges have nothing to do with it. As another poster noted, (to paraphrase), it is just hollow virtue-signaling. Which is everywhere. Please keep it out of my retro true-crime shows.

My leg and pocket may indeed be just fine for now. But that doesn't mean being silent only until my leg is broken and (a la Morty Seinfeld) my wallet's gone is a proper approach.

Now if you'll be so kind as to excuse me, I need to find the microphone I just dropped.

PS: I'd been hoping to keep this from getting into politics too much, but, eh, here we are I guess. I felt prodded into additional comments such as this one.

That part.

What a deep and articulate contribution to this thread you've offered here. I'll just refer you to other posts including my reply from a few moments ago.

The point about physical media is spot on. This is exactly why we need physical media, to prevent content from being edited or erased in the blink of an eye.

The problem with these kind of warnings is precisely that they are not an alternative to, but rather a complement of, making content unavailable entirely. One day its a pointless warning, the next day its not there at all.

The original Unsolved Mysteries is already unavailable as it is, that ought to serve as a cautionary tale about how a series that was on national television can simply be removed from existence.

Great points about physical media. Given your username, MediaHoarder, you might understand better than anyone. Even if something I like is on Netflix and there's no indication it's going to be pulled, I just have to at least download it. Preserves the content even if and when the services decide there's not enough profit to keep it available.

In general, I don’t mind trigger warnings. I think it’s good that we’re moving in the direction of more sensitivity as a society, and it’s better than pulling the media down.

As a related aside, I noticed a long time ago that UM treated Liz Carmichael’s gender identity with much more sensitivity than Cam Lyman’s, despite the Carmichael segment airing years earlier (and Lyman being far more sympathetic). My guess is that this was because Carmichael was not a public figure prior to transitioning, while Lyman was (e.g., at dog shows).

In general, I don’t mind trigger warnings. I think it’s good that we’re moving in the direction of more sensitivity as a society, and it’s better than pulling the media down.

As a related aside, I noticed a long time ago that UM treated Liz Carmichael’s gender identity with much more sensitivity than Cam Lyman’s, despite the Carmichael segment airing years earlier (and Lyman being far more sympathetic). My guess is that this was because Carmichael was not a public figure prior to transitioning, while Lyman was (e.g., at dog shows).

You make a good point about having media taken down being undesirable. Very Orwellian stuff. Don't you see how quickly the two could grow connected, though?

When that (media, like some 30 Rock episodes being removed from streaming) does happen, it seems to be happening in the name of faux or over-sensitivity. So I don't think you can neatly divorce the two. Too much "sensitivity" can be harmful. When you can't offend anyone, you can't interest anyone.

I find it so odd that I cited Stack's quote re: Judith Hyams, and, I don't think anybody has replied about that. It all very quickly goes back to trans (psychological disorders; mostly gender dysphoria). What he said about Hyams was really brutal. And, Stack himself said that. It wasn't inference, quotes, or input by parties other than the host. I know it was on camera and likely from a script, not necessarily Stack's personal view. But I don't want to see a trigger warning or pre-episode apology about it.

Jerry Dean Michael was just a criminal peddling a fake vehicle that 80s Big Wheels would put to shame. Camilla Lyman was a murder victim with a love for animals. While they had gender dysphoria in common, that's about all. Let's not surrender to the pressure to make anything and everything about identity politics above all else. Again, one was a con artist; one was a murder victim.

Also, check this out, to start with a bit of empirical research as opposed to ascientific banter found in news, and in other areas. The study addresses whether or not trigger warnings do any good.

“We found substantial evidence that trigger warnings countertherapeutically reinforce survivors’ view of their trauma as central to their identity. Regarding replication hypotheses, the evidence was either ambiguous or substantially favored the hypothesis that trigger warnings have no effect. In summary, we found that trigger warnings are not helpful for trauma survivors.”

Jones, P. J., Bellet, B. W., & McNally, R. J. (2020). Helping or Harming? The Effect of Trigger Warnings on Individuals With Trauma Histories. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(5), 905-917.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167702620921341

If you're so inclined, Google Scholar is a good source for such things (where I found that article). Public library access is critical, too. If you have alumni library access on top of those, so much the better.

The article cited above doesn't neatly apply to the cases we've discussed here, but as noted above, it's at least one potential starting point.

Anyway, if we can keep the (mostly woke) identity politics out of our beloved UM Stack episodes, and indeed this forum, that would be best. And, politics in general. But as noted before, some responses to my original post left me feeling prodded into replies such as this. I don't like it. I had to say something originally, but, now, I'd rather take a nap. Or go to Steve Marks's place for some spaghetti.

Time to sign off. Still looking for that microphone I dropped earlier on thinwhiteduke74.

But, why is it there to begin with? Don't you see a slippery slope problem here? What's next?

No, I don't see a slippery slope.

I do mind, however, how the original show's writers regarded trans men and women and unmarried women. It's not that we in 2024 are Better People: in 1987 to 1995 there were already people who objected to the way in which, say, trans people were treated.

StackTime, I just had to chime in to let you know that I agree 100% with you.

I can't believe I read an unironic use of "woke." I'm gay and Hispanic. To me "woke" means "be polite."

EDIT: I don't use trigger warnings in the college courses I teach. I'm open to the argument that they don't work. But if they keep at least one viewer away from disturbing material, then what's the harm? I don't watch UM as an nostalgia exercise, so I'm not bothered when modernity intrudes on the pristineness of my memories.

No offense to the original poster, but who cares?

It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, to quote Thomas Jefferson. The warning is to protect themselves from legal challenges. Just tune it out.

It is very strange to see people get upset because the producers were trying to be considerate of other folks (especially victims/survivors of violence who watched UM).

There's nothing "Orwellian" about letting viewers know that there might be objectionable or violent imagery in a given segment. Every news channel I've watched since the early 1980s would preface a particularly gruesome report with a warning about harsh descriptions or sexual content.

No one is being oppressed by "trigger warnings." It doesn't hurt ANYONE.

The only folks who have issues with the warnings are those that lack social awareness and/or those who might lack empathy.

I remember the one case from North Carolina where they did a warning because it was a Black male hurting a white woman - this was a socially responsible thing because a lot of viewers from less-diverse areas might have biases that the segment would have fortified.

Putting the information out there that most assaults tend to happen WITHIN racial groups was a necessary prologue and it was certainly appreciated by me and most of the folks I knew when that episode aired.

Why anyone would have an issue with removing bias/prejudice or warning those with specific sensitivities before a segment is beyond me.

It literally doesn't harm anyone on the planet. Unless you have zero consideration for the feelings of others.

Alas...

It is very strange to see people get upset because the producers were trying to be considerate of other folks (especially victims/survivors of violence who watched UM).

There's nothing "Orwellian" about letting viewers know that there might be objectionable or violent imagery in a given segment. Every news channel I've watched since the early 1980s would preface a particularly gruesome report with a warning about harsh descriptions or sexual content.

No one is being oppressed by "trigger warnings." It doesn't hurt ANYONE.

The only folks who have issues with the warnings are those that lack social awareness and/or those who might lack empathy.

I remember the one case from North Carolina where they did a warning because it was a Black male hurting a white woman - this was a socially responsible thing because a lot of viewers from less-diverse areas might have biases that the segment would have fortified.

Putting the information out there that most assaults tend to happen WITHIN racial groups was a necessary prologue and it was certainly appreciated by me and most of the folks I knew when that episode aired.

Why anyone would have an issue with removing bias/prejudice or warning those with specific sensitivities before a segment is beyond me.

It literally doesn't harm anyone on the planet. Unless you have zero consideration for the feelings of others.

Alas...

Booming post.

Booming post.

Booming? Booming of nonsense, perhaps. I'm exhausted by this, but, see my reply to comicbookwriter's comment. Maybe he or she should stick to fiction.

It is very strange to see people get upset because the producers were trying to be considerate of other folks (especially victims/survivors of violence who watched UM).

There's nothing "Orwellian" about letting viewers know that there might be objectionable or violent imagery in a given segment. Every news channel I've watched since the early 1980s would preface a particularly gruesome report with a warning about harsh descriptions or sexual content.

No one is being oppressed by "trigger warnings." It doesn't hurt ANYONE.

The only folks who have issues with the warnings are those that lack social awareness and/or those who might lack empathy.

I remember the one case from North Carolina where they did a warning because it was a Black male hurting a white woman - this was a socially responsible thing because a lot of viewers from less-diverse areas might have biases that the segment would have fortified.

Putting the information out there that most assaults tend to happen WITHIN racial groups was a necessary prologue and it was certainly appreciated by me and most of the folks I knew when that episode aired.

Why anyone would have an issue with removing bias/prejudice or warning those with specific sensitivities before a segment is beyond me.

It literally doesn't harm anyone on the planet. Unless you have zero consideration for the feelings of others.

Alas...

Let's "unpack" the reply here from comicbookwriter.

1) If the producers were really trying to be considerate of victims/survivors or violence who watched UM, well, again, why the selective and political nature of the pre-episode trigger warnings/messages? CT Carol being shot in the face; Hyams being verbally ridiculed by Stack for being unmarried and seeking an abortion gets nothing re: a special pre-episode message? (And the list goes on and on). Yet the Jerry Dean Michael and Camilla Lyman segments (and a small amount of others) get special treatment? Don't you see how uneven that is? How politically influenced it is?

1a) If you're a victim or survivor of violence, maybe it would be in your best health interests to not watch shows like Unsolved Mysteries to begin with. I have certain phobias and avoid certain programming as a result.

2) To be clear, I never said anyone was being oppressed by these messages. Don't try, weakly, to draw this into an oppressor-oppressed dyad. It's not that at all.

2a) You're making sweeping assumptions about the compassions of others when it comes to "social awareness" and "empathy." I have both. Without revealing too many details about my own identity here, I've worked for over a decade in a public service field, and many of the individuals I have supported have been victims of violations, crimes, or other traumas. I have a graduate degree in a related field. What's your background, such that you feel ready to judge me like that?

3) I do see how the NC "Debbie" case could warrant such a message. But the episode was just illustrating facts of a horrific crime. If someone is going to watch that segment and fly into a racially-centered rage about it, chances are that person will flip off their disgusting MAGA hat and stumble upon something in the local daily news and do the same. It's almost like a form of confirmation bias on the behalf of the biased.

4) I have an issue with rewriting history, even within something like Unsolved Mysteries. So "removing bias/prejudice" in 2024...well, think ahead to 2034. Or 2044. There are almost certainly things you are doing, thinking, and saying right now that you believe are to the end of social justice, but, your (if you have any...I, luckily, don't) grandchildren will find abhorrent. Editing history is wrong, no matter how ugly it is, or how uncomfortable it may be. If that's "beyond" you, well, I think you're "beyond" rational thinking that is not plainly blind presentism.

5) Such things may or may not "harm" individual persons, but, it harms freedom of speech, freedom of press, and accurate history. Last time I opened a history book, those have proven to be pretty important to people on the planet living in free societies. As mentioned before - slippery slope.

5a) As cited above, I have consideration for others. Active consideration, in that my career has involved working with many individuals who may be adversly affected by such incidents. Not often crime that would make national television, but, things come up. (I can't get much more specific to protect my own identity and/or those of individuals I have worked with). For you to claim I do not, is intellectually lazy. If I don't walk in the door and agree with 100% of your ideas, I'm automatically inconsiderate (or worse), it seems. "Zero consideration for the feelings of others."

I care about people's feelings. I care about facts and reality more, though. I disdain political correctness, which is why I penned the original post.

Thanks, by the way, for entirely avoiding my Hyams example, let alone the journal article related to all of this that I shared (which should be free to access for anyone; I apologize if not). You're cherry-picking just to pat yourself on the back for pretending to be a better person than I am. Or any sane moderate.

The moderator may not like how political this has become, understandably. I apologize if my initial post (which had supportive replies) sparked it. I had to say something but didn't intend for it to get this deep. I'm going to defend myself though, against intellectually hollow retorts such as these.

Now I have to find two microphones. Crap.

Booming? Booming of nonsense, perhaps. I'm exhausted by this, but, see my reply to comicbookwriter's comment. Maybe he or she should stick to fiction.

Empathy is exhausting for those who lack it.

It is very strange to see people get upset because the producers were trying to be considerate of other folks (especially victims/survivors of violence who watched UM).

There's nothing "Orwellian" about letting viewers know that there might be objectionable or violent imagery in a given segment. Every news channel I've watched since the early 1980s would preface a particularly gruesome report with a warning about harsh descriptions or sexual content.

No one is being oppressed by "trigger warnings." It doesn't hurt ANYONE.

The only folks who have issues with the warnings are those that lack social awareness and/or those who might lack empathy.

I remember the one case from North Carolina where they did a warning because it was a Black male hurting a white woman - this was a socially responsible thing because a lot of viewers from less-diverse areas might have biases that the segment would have fortified.

Putting the information out there that most assaults tend to happen WITHIN racial groups was a necessary prologue and it was certainly appreciated by me and most of the folks I knew when that episode aired.

Why anyone would have an issue with removing bias/prejudice or warning those with specific sensitivities before a segment is beyond me.

It literally doesn't harm anyone on the planet. Unless you have zero consideration for the feelings of others.

Alas...


My apologies to the poster here, as I did not reply to at least one point:

"There's nothing "Orwellian" about letting viewers know that there might be objectionable or violent imagery in a given segment. Every news channel I've watched since the early 1980s would preface a particularly gruesome report with a warning about harsh descriptions or sexual content."

Yeah, I'm with you in viewing experience when it comes to graphic content. Or even "curse" words. Local news stories, for instance. Or other national programs (Dateline, 20/20, Forensic Files, Disappeared).

A gruesome report....harsh descriptions....sexual content. How is Jerry Dean Michael in that category? A non-violent car fraudster? And, how are any of the other segments with such pre-segment warnings more or less in need of such warnings? You don't think the re-enactment of Carson Prince being thrown out/falling out of a moving truck on an interstate, leading to massive and ultimately deadly TBIs worthy of such a warning? Yet that does not exist.

The criteria here does not seem to be how gruesome or violent the segment is. As I've tried to note, it appears much, much more about politics. And that has no real place in UM, retro, or now.

What is Orwellian is the selection of what the people can or can't take with or without such messages. I find the Carson Prince segment far, far more disturbing than any of the gender dysphoria-related ones. But I don't want trigger warnings on ANY of them. I'm watching Unsolved Mysteries after all, not Inspector Gadget. And, as I keep saying, it's uneven and political in nature. That is a problem.

Empathy is exhausting for those who lack it.

You can't be exhausted by something that supposedly doesn't exist within you to begin with. Illogical statement there. And empathy (something I, uh, do have, as explained clearly in another post) doesn't exhaust me. Nonsense does, though. Rapidly.

You continue to just cherry-pick at me. I've done my best to respond to all of your ill-stated points. Same with the other (something including duke in the username) poster who seems annoyed by me. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Otherwise, we'll get nowhere. So far, it's been mostly ad-hominem because I don't agree with what you think to begin with. You're basically resorting to saying the jerk store called, and they're running out of me. Not having open and intelligent discussion of the points made.

Granted, this thread is probably doomed by now anyway. And maybe it should be. It's becoming all about politics and not Unsolved Mysteries. Not the purpose of this forum.

I again apologize if the thread here has distracted us from Unsolved Mysteries and went into pure politics. The initial post was only nominally about politics. It's clearly spiraled and I don't think any of us (myself included) like that. But, again, I cannot allow meritless and/or insulting replies slip by.

I care about people's feelings. I care about facts and reality more, though.

Yeah, we know.

I can't believe I read an unironic use of "woke." I'm gay and Hispanic. To me "woke" means "be polite."

EDIT: I don't use trigger warnings in the college courses I teach. I'm open to the argument that they don't work. But if they keep at least one viewer away from disturbing material, then what's the harm? I don't watch UM as an nostalgia exercise, so I'm not bothered when modernity intrudes on the pristineness of my memories.

Well, to at least try to center things, we use the descriptor "woke" differently. If someone is being polite, why the need to call them woke? Why not just say they are polite?

I'm glad you're not using common trigger warnings. I do think some (very few) can be useful. So, thank you for being sensible about that in your courses.

The harm is the promotion of one narrative over another in media content, re-writing (sometimes literally, a la Dahl), and emphasizing feelings above truth.

I'm a little bothered, honestly, when this creeps in on content from yesteryear. Some of it is nostalgia, some of it is me developing osteoporosis, sure. Damn, that Larry Bird jersey really is getting small. But, a lot of it is being bothered by assault on reality.

In my estimation, woke/wokeism has become the elevation of group identity over individual identity, and, it grows from there. Race, sex, gender, height, weight, etc. It is flagrantly incongruent with MLK's message about content of character. Wokeism seems to give a greater voice to the "oppressed" and not the most logical. The oppressed are not automatically right about all things.

That's how I generally define it. It's not a perfect definition just yet. But, yeah, I oppose it. Passionately. I tried to define it above, but admittedly, there seem to be a lot of moving parts.

If you're gay and Hispanic, very well. I'm straight and white, for what it's worth. For either of us, why would those attributes matter when having a discussion of a logical nature? Shouldn't our content matter much more than our group memberships, voluntary or otherwise?

MLK did NOT call for a color-blind society. King never said ignore a person's race: he just said don't judge them by their race. MLK wasn't arguing for people not to see race (be colorblind), but rather, that we shouldn't judge people based on it: a subtle distinction. The real problem is that when people say that, it is meant they pretend they don't see a Black man. If you don’t see his color, how can you begin to understand his struggles?

But, yeah, I agree: we're done with this subject.

Could the moderator lock this discussion? Clearly the OP has a political bone to saw and this doesn't add anything to any UM discussion.

The OP is clearly not the only one with an agenda that is posting on this thread.

Well, I should hope so.