The leader is seemingly advocating zombies are the next step. It wont take much to suddenly make her suggest the entire group kill themselves to get to the next stage. Shes already pressuring others into doing so or outright murdering anyone she sees as a threat
@ShaneGrimes: Also this cult [at the Baja house] won't last too long.
@InGen_Nate_Kenny: I would have said Nick, but he's going zombi… moree cult like, I don't want that in a person.
I'm not getting cult vibes from anybody? Could you please explain?
Is she though? Its more her family unit are the main characters
I'd say Nick is more the main character than her. Not to mention shes had the least development out of her family except maybe Travis
It's not exactly hate, it's just I find her really annoying and unlikable. She gives me the Lori or Andrea vibes (their TV counterparts, I mean). She's grumpy, bossy, selfish, and I don't really feel like she's being fair towards Travis nor Nick. Plus she doesn't make me feel empathic towards her due to her seemingly never reacting to anything, wooden. Like if she doesn't care at all. I get she's supposed to be Fear's Rick but no matter how much I try I can't grow fond of her. I think I would like her better if she wasn't the protagonist, more like a supporting character.
WTH is wrong with chriss??? i get it! his parents divorced, his family got separated, his father put him aside (not on purpose), married another woman and made a new family without him and the her mother died, but.... that doesnt justify it, is he sick or what?
I think everyone is being a little hard on Chris. In the moment when he contemplates whether or not to help Madison, he has every right to be peeved at her; She told him that she believed him and then tells everyone behind his back the exact opposite. In that respect, Madison kinda deserved it. And then with the threatening of Alicia...Chris didn't threaten her specifically. Chris told Alicia that she misinterpreted the mishap with Madison--which may or may not have been true, but Chris says to her, and I'm paraphrasing, that if Alicia tells everyone her interpretation of what happened the group may turn on him and he doesn't want to hurt anyone(as in that he WILL protect himself if it comes down to it). And the situation with Madison and Alicia waking up to Chris holding the knife---Chris went in to the bedroom to talk to Alicia about what happened. When he enters the room he sees that they're sleeping with a knife next to the bed---Chris picked up the knife in a " omg, they're afraid of me.." type of way. Remember what Reed told Chris about how they'd all turn on him since he's not related to them? I think that's what was going through his mind, not hurting Alicia and/or Madison. I think this whole situation with Chris is a red herring; the same as the situation with Strand.
My fav characters are Nick and Strand. I also like Ofelia. And I'm in the minority here, but I also like Chris---I know, how horrible, how could I? Well, I do.
It's not exactly hate, it's just I find her really annoying and unlikable. She gives me the Lori or Andrea vibes (their TV counterparts, I m… moreean). She's grumpy, bossy, selfish, and I don't really feel like she's being fair towards Travis nor Nick. Plus she doesn't make me feel empathic towards her due to her seemingly never reacting to anything, wooden. Like if she doesn't care at all. I get she's supposed to be Fear's Rick but no matter how much I try I can't grow fond of her. I think I would like her better if she wasn't the protagonist, more like a supporting character.
I think everyone is being a little hard on Chris. In the moment when he contemplates whether or not to help Madison, he has every right to b… moree peeved at her; She told him that she believed him and then tells everyone behind his back the exact opposite. In that respect, Madison kinda deserved it. And then with the threatening of Alicia...Chris didn't threaten her specifically. Chris told Alicia that she misinterpreted the mishap with Madison--which may or may not have been true, but Chris says to her, and I'm paraphrasing, that if Alicia tells everyone her interpretation of what happened the group may turn on him and he doesn't want to hurt anyone(as in that he WILL protect himself if it comes down to it). And the situation with Madison and Alicia waking up to Chris holding the knife---Chris went in to the bedroom to talk to Alicia about what happened. When he enters the room he sees that they're sleeping with a knife next to the bed---Chris pi… [view original content]
I'm not saying she deserved to get murdered--technically it wouldn't be murder as Chris didn't actively put Madison in danger and then leave her to die, but from Chris' perspective, what Madison did was a huge betrayal. And typically when people on this type of show feel betrayed they often seek revenge of some form. If Madison didn't believe him she and Travis could've approached him and discussed it with him what made him think Reed was going to turn.
In that respect, Madison kinda deserved it.
People deserve to get murdered for talking about a kid with his father and saying differ… moreent things to his face?
Wow, I hope you never talk to your parents about the conversations they had about you when you were a kid, that happens all the time.
Strand cut the rope of the raft because he didn't want Charlie and Jake next to the Abigail, under the explanation that he didn't have enough money to pay for them too, right? Did I get that right? Then, it wouldn't really be a problem, seeing that the seven extra people hid in the engine room anyway. You could argue that his contact would see them in the raft, and that Victor wouldn't want them anywhere on his ship because he distrusted them, but it's still food for thought. His moral justification can pretty easily be thrown overboard. In hindsight, really was an ass in the moment.
Was that morally wrong? I'm my opinion, yes, but not any more wrong than it was refusing shelter to that other raft with a dozen people that we saw in "Monster." But it's still his ship—or at least he was the closest thing to an owner,—and nobody else should be calling the shots.
Let's say just a more extreme version of what Herschel first thought in TWD. He had some religious motivation behind his thinking, and just like them he kept his loved ones "alive" in a closed area, like the cellar. Also I wonder how much that first scene was of a ritual killing compared to a murder, you know what I mean?
Like that scene in Family Guy where Meg goes to the cult meetings where everyone kills themselves for some higher purpose. Except it doesn't sound as extreme yet
@ShaneGrimes: Also this cult [at the Baja house] won't last too long.
@InGen_Nate_Kenny: I would have said Nick, but he's going zombi… moree cult like, I don't want that in a person.
I'm not getting cult vibes from anybody? Could you please explain?
What we fail to realize is that if it we're up to Strand, the only people on his boat would be him, Luis and Nic. Everything after that he feels like he's done out of the kindness of his own heart.
He didn't cut the rope because he didn't have enough money to pay for the extra two. He cut the rope because he didn't owe them anything, and didn't need to burden himself more than he already has. What may be morally wrong to you, would make almost perfect sense from the other POV.
And honestly, who knows what Strand would've done with the whole group if everything went smoothly. Its not like he owed them more than just the boat ride, so everything extra that's happened is still much More kind then they deserve.
Strand cut the rope of the raft because he didn't want Charlie and Jake next to the Abigail, under the explanation that he didn't have enoug… moreh money to pay for them too, right? Did I get that right? Then, it wouldn't really be a problem, seeing that the seven extra people hid in the engine room anyway. You could argue that his contact would see them in the raft, and that Victor wouldn't want them anywhere on his ship because he distrusted them, but it's still food for thought. His moral justification can pretty easily be thrown overboard. In hindsight, really was an ass in the moment.
Was that morally wrong? I'm my opinion, yes, but not any more wrong than it was refusing shelter to that other raft with a dozen people that we saw in "Monster." But it's still his ship—or at least he was the closest thing to an owner,—and nobody else should be calling the shots.
Ok and when we say kill, are we talking like how Travis had to kill his ex, like how Carl had to kill his mom?
Or are we talking like Ric… morek and Shane?
Cause I can see your point now, especially with what I think could be coming soon (some army/rogue miltia type has to be out there) I could see that being an end point to this season.
Let's not say cult @BetterToSleep
Let's say just a more extreme version of what Herschel first thought in TWD. He had some religious moti… morevation behind his thinking, and just like them he kept his loved ones "alive" in a closed area, like the cellar. Also I wonder how much that first scene was of a ritual killing compared to a murder, you know what I mean?
Like that scene in Family Guy where Meg goes to the cult meetings where everyone kills themselves for some higher purpose. Except it doesn't sound as extreme yet
but reed wasn't gonna turn cause he wasn't dead yet. He got shot in the mouth, if he was turning when chris shot him, he wouldn't have been knocked out. He would have been biting and snarling the whole time. Instead he turns minutes later in front of everybody.
* I'm not saying she deserved to get murdered--technically it wouldn't be murder as Chris didn't actively put Madison in danger and then lea… moreve her to die, but from Chris' perspective, what Madison did was a huge betrayal. And typically when people on this type of show feel betrayed they often seek revenge of some form. If Madison didn't believe him she and Travis could've approached him and discussed it with him what made him think Reed was going to turn.
I fear none of the kids are safe after this episode. Chris is psychotic and might have to be killed if he does something too extreme. Alicia has a target on her back and Nick is being heavily influenced by the pozole lady who's name I do not know.
Oh, I know that it made perfect sense in his mind! Even if it didn't, it was still his ship, and therefore, he was the authority. I completely respect his right to choose who gets on-board and who doesn't. Which, in my slightly conflicted opinion, doesn't mean that it wasn't morally wrong, because Jake ended up dying because of that. I thought I had encapsulated it well enough in my last paragraph.
Was that morally wrong? I'm my opinion, yes (…) but it's still his ship—or at least he was the closest thing to an owner,—and nobody else should be calling the shots.
What did Charlie say about Jake's death? I totally forgot.
What we fail to realize is that if it we're up to Strand, the only people on his boat would be him, Luis and Nic. Everything after that he f… moreeels like he's done out of the kindness of his own heart.
He didn't cut the rope because he didn't have enough money to pay for the extra two. He cut the rope because he didn't owe them anything, and didn't need to burden himself more than he already has. What may be morally wrong to you, would make almost perfect sense from the other POV.
And honestly, who knows what Strand would've done with the whole group if everything went smoothly. Its not like he owed them more than just the boat ride, so everything extra that's happened is still much More kind then they deserve.
I fear none of the kids are safe after this episode. Chris is psychotic and might have to be killed if he does something too extreme. Alicia has a target on her back and Nick is being heavily influenced by the pozole lady who's name I do not know.
Just like Connors brother told him. Ah shit I kinda hope that Chris can pull it together and hopefully Travis and Chris leave the group to actually look out for each other...
I honestly think I'm the only one who thinks Madisen will be the fall of the group. She seems to have almost everything figured out but her children, which sucks because her kids are probably the best ones to trust in this ZA. I mean compared to what Chris and Ofelia (which she's doing nothing bad really, but nothing important also) are doing, these guys are badass one and two.
Would not have a problem if everyone died but these two, and maybe Daniel
To be honest her and Travis are both pretty awful.
Shes really selfish. She only cares about her, Nick and Alicia. Everyone else includin… moreg Travis and Chris are pretty much expendable to her.
Hes incredibly dull and constantly makes dumb decisions
They dont suit each other at all, they argue constantly and are terrible parents.
Well maybe on the family thing, but I can't see them always keeping those four alive, and her name is listed first on the credits.
It's definitely not Nick. If it were Nick he'd definitely be listed first. He's listed like, at least 3rd.
I'll give you that for TWD, it could've been Maggie. But if it wasn't Travis, it would've been Nic.
Idk why these people don't just commit suicide instead of forcing someone to kill them. I'd say just give me the gun
hope that what Daniel is going through is more of a PTSD/War freak out cause that'd be interesting (to me).
That'd be a bit risky considering people respond so aggressively to discussion of PTSD triggers these days, and so they could easily be labelled as SJWs and lose viewers, but I'd like to see it happen.
I hope that what Daniel is going through is more of a PTSD/War freak out cause that'd be interesting (to me).
I don't want to see Hersche… morels farm, but I'm hoping that they're doing a bit of what they did from TWD here. The way they are showing everyone freaking out in their own personal space(s) kinda makes me think someone's dying at the end of the season (Please no cliffhangers)
Nick And Alicia feel like the true main characters and I'd have no problem if both Travis and Madisen die. They are honestly already the leaders, now that Daniel and Strand are freaking out, and Luis (he had so much potential!!! Is it just me?) is dead.
Also this cult won't last too long. Seems like we're gonna get some backstory since they are supposedly safe from other people and walkers (beside the cellar). So yeah hopefully we don't get a Shane-Rick parallel.
Or actually that's cool
How do you know that Reed wasn't dead or close to death yet? The guy had been impaled. We don't what happened between the time that Reed was telling Chris off and when Chris shot him-maybe things went south very fast. Even still, the only reason shooting Reed became a problem was when the group realized they could use Reed as leverage. Chris did act brashly, but how was he supposed to know that there was a change in plans; it's not like the group notified the guard of the deal. But also, homeboy was only going yo trade Reed for Travis; he wasn't going to let Alicia go, so in that respect, Chris did the group a solid by giving them a way to get both Alicia and Travis back---the chaos that ensued from the trade off was enough to give Alicia a chance to get away.
but reed wasn't gonna turn cause he wasn't dead yet. He got shot in the mouth, if he was turning when chris shot him, he wouldn't have been… more knocked out. He would have been biting and snarling the whole time. Instead he turns minutes later in front of everybody.
Implementing the real-life struggle of people with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would be far from acting like a—cringe-worthy—social justice warrior, in my opinion, though it's true, some people could mix it up. Besides, I had never heard about them pronouncing a word about mental disorders?
hope that what Daniel is going through is more of a PTSD/War freak out cause that'd be interesting (to me).
That'd be a bit risky co… morensidering people respond so aggressively to discussion of PTSD triggers these days, and so they could easily be labelled as SJWs and lose viewers, but I'd like to see it happen.
but Chris shot the guy cause he was gonna turn and he still turned. so not only did he foul up by shooting him, but he didn't even accomplish what he set out to do which was stop him from turning.
How do you know that Reed wasn't dead or close to death yet? The guy had been impaled. We don't what happened between the time that Reed was… more telling Chris off and when Chris shot him-maybe things went south very fast. Even still, the only reason shooting Reed became a problem was when the group realized they could use Reed as leverage. Chris did act brashly, but how was he supposed to know that there was a change in plans; it's not like the group notified the guard of the deal. But also, homeboy was only going yo trade Reed for Travis; he wasn't going to let Alicia go, so in that respect, Chris did the group a solid by giving them a way to get both Alicia and Travis back---the chaos that ensued from the trade off was enough to give Alicia a chance to get away.
Your thread had nothing to do with The Walking Dead, and was outright disrespectful toward the moderators. You even admit that you didn't expect it to last five minutes. Why do you act surprised?
Implementing the real-life struggle of people with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would be far from acting like a—cringe-worthy—social justi… morece warrior, in my opinion, though it's true, some people could mix it up. Besides, I had never heard about them pronouncing a word about mental disorders?
Like I campaign for trigger warnings as disabilities rep of my university college, and it's all to do with mental disorders. That's the prime motivator behind trigger warnings. Yet I'm called an SJW occassionally (I do think people use that term excessively and generally when referring to a viewpoint they disagree with).
Or is SJW more about an attitude than a viewpoint? Can someone fully support trigger warnings without being an SJW? If so, what specific attitude defines an SJW and how do you ensure that you perceive it accurately?
From my understanding, an SJW is somebody who defends groups generally discriminated upon—racial minorities, sexual minorities, transgender and agender individuals, females, religious minorities—while also stating that these groups are superior to their less discriminated counterparts—whites, heterosexuals, cisgender individuals, males, religious majorities. A white, heterosexual, cisgender male is evil by nature, going by this reasoning, which, you might or might not agree, doing this is just as bad.
It's fairly easy to recognize an SJW. Somebody is a "warrior" when they are cheering up a group of generally discriminated-upon individuals while demonizing everyone who doesn't fit that category. It's an even bigger of a double standard when you only defend some of these discriminated groups while completely ignoring others.
I am in favor of using trigger warnings, and those who support trigger warnings, in order to help those with mental disorders, are not necessarily an SJW, as long as they do not bash on people who do not have a mental disorder.
By the way, I congrat you for defending trigger warnings!
Wow...that makes me question how you define SJW?
Like I campaign for trigger warnings as disabilities rep of my university college, and i… moret's all to do with mental disorders. That's the prime motivator behind trigger warnings. Yet I'm called an SJW occassionally (I do think people use that term excessively and generally when referring to a viewpoint they disagree with).
Or is SJW more about an attitude than a viewpoint? Can someone fully support trigger warnings without being an SJW? If so, what specific attitude defines an SJW and how do you ensure that you perceive it accurately?
With the SJW thing people immediately think of someone who exaggerates everything to be a trigger or discrimination. Whatever the word actually means has been lost. Social justice warrior basically equals an aggressive keyboard warrior who bleats on about stuff they dont really understand with poor facts and biased sources, if even that.
Like I campaign for trigger warnings as disabilities rep of my university college, and it's all to do with mental disorders. That's the prime motivator behind trigger warnings. Yet I'm called an SJW occassionally
Its probably depends on what you consider a trigger and what can cause someone to have one or what could trigger them. Triggered has been so exaggerated and downgraded to someone being upset about something when its actually a very severe response to deep rooted trauma. Tumblr and other places have made the word a joke so now its a punchline to overly offended culture.
Wow...that makes me question how you define SJW?
Like I campaign for trigger warnings as disabilities rep of my university college, and i… moret's all to do with mental disorders. That's the prime motivator behind trigger warnings. Yet I'm called an SJW occassionally (I do think people use that term excessively and generally when referring to a viewpoint they disagree with).
Or is SJW more about an attitude than a viewpoint? Can someone fully support trigger warnings without being an SJW? If so, what specific attitude defines an SJW and how do you ensure that you perceive it accurately?
Its probably depends on what you consider a trigger and what can cause someone to have one or what could trigger them. Triggered has been so exaggerated and downgraded to someone being upset about something when its actually a very severe response to deep rooted trauma. Tumblr and other places have made the word a joke so now its a punchline to overly offended culture.
Hm, well I find this confusing in terms of what Bettertosleep says because there's a massive range of things which can, scientifically, trigger PTS.
Wow...that makes me question how you define SJW?
With the SJW thing people immediately think of someone who exaggerates everything t… moreo be a trigger or discrimination. Whatever the word actually means has been lost. Social justice warrior basically equals an aggressive keyboard warrior who bleats on about stuff they dont really understand with poor facts and biased sources, if even that.
Like I campaign for trigger warnings as disabilities rep of my university college, and it's all to do with mental disorders. That's the prime motivator behind trigger warnings. Yet I'm called an SJW occassionally
Its probably depends on what you consider a trigger and what can cause someone to have one or what could trigger them. Triggered has been so exaggerated and downgraded to someone being upset about something when its actually a very severe response to deep rooted trauma. Tumblr and other places have made the word a joke so now its a punchline to overly offended culture.
Comments
I'm not getting cult vibes from anybody? Could you please explain?
The leader is seemingly advocating zombies are the next step. It wont take much to suddenly make her suggest the entire group kill themselves to get to the next stage. Shes already pressuring others into doing so or outright murdering anyone she sees as a threat
Salazar
Am I the only one who can't stand Madison? Geez... It's a shame she'll never die.
Why do you hate her?
Well maybe on the family thing, but I can't see them always keeping those four alive, and her name is listed first on the credits.
It's definitely not Nick. If it were Nick he'd definitely be listed first. He's listed like, at least 3rd.
It's not exactly hate, it's just I find her really annoying and unlikable. She gives me the Lori or Andrea vibes (their TV counterparts, I mean). She's grumpy, bossy, selfish, and I don't really feel like she's being fair towards Travis nor Nick. Plus she doesn't make me feel empathic towards her due to her seemingly never reacting to anything, wooden. Like if she doesn't care at all. I get she's supposed to be Fear's Rick but no matter how much I try I can't grow fond of her. I think I would like her better if she wasn't the protagonist, more like a supporting character.
WTH is wrong with chriss??? i get it! his parents divorced, his family got separated, his father put him aside (not on purpose), married another woman and made a new family without him and the her mother died, but.... that doesnt justify it, is he sick or what?
I think everyone is being a little hard on Chris. In the moment when he contemplates whether or not to help Madison, he has every right to be peeved at her; She told him that she believed him and then tells everyone behind his back the exact opposite. In that respect, Madison kinda deserved it. And then with the threatening of Alicia...Chris didn't threaten her specifically. Chris told Alicia that she misinterpreted the mishap with Madison--which may or may not have been true, but Chris says to her, and I'm paraphrasing, that if Alicia tells everyone her interpretation of what happened the group may turn on him and he doesn't want to hurt anyone(as in that he WILL protect himself if it comes down to it). And the situation with Madison and Alicia waking up to Chris holding the knife---Chris went in to the bedroom to talk to Alicia about what happened. When he enters the room he sees that they're sleeping with a knife next to the bed---Chris picked up the knife in a " omg, they're afraid of me.." type of way. Remember what Reed told Chris about how they'd all turn on him since he's not related to them? I think that's what was going through his mind, not hurting Alicia and/or Madison. I think this whole situation with Chris is a red herring; the same as the situation with Strand.
No, I don't really care for Madison either. She gets on my nerves a lot too.
My fav characters are Nick and Strand. I also like Ofelia. And I'm in the minority here, but I also like Chris---I know, how horrible, how could I? Well, I do.
Huh, interesting, I don't think she's been any more so than Strand or Travis.
People deserve to get murdered for talking about a kid with his father and saying different things to his face?
Wow, I hope you never talk to your parents about the conversations they had about you when you were a kid, that happens all the time.
Strand cut the rope of the raft because he didn't want Charlie and Jake next to the Abigail, under the explanation that he didn't have enough money to pay for them too, right? Did I get that right? Then, it wouldn't really be a problem, seeing that the seven extra people hid in the engine room anyway. You could argue that his contact would see them in the raft, and that Victor wouldn't want them anywhere on his ship because he distrusted them, but it's still food for thought. His moral justification can pretty easily be thrown overboard. In hindsight, really was an ass in the moment.
Was that morally wrong? I'm my opinion, yes, but not any more wrong than it was refusing shelter to that other raft with a dozen people that we saw in "Monster." But it's still his ship—or at least he was the closest thing to an owner,—and nobody else should be calling the shots.
Let's not say cult @BetterToSleep
Let's say just a more extreme version of what Herschel first thought in TWD. He had some religious motivation behind his thinking, and just like them he kept his loved ones "alive" in a closed area, like the cellar. Also I wonder how much that first scene was of a ritual killing compared to a murder, you know what I mean?
Like that scene in Family Guy where Meg goes to the cult meetings where everyone kills themselves for some higher purpose. Except it doesn't sound as extreme yet
What we fail to realize is that if it we're up to Strand, the only people on his boat would be him, Luis and Nic. Everything after that he feels like he's done out of the kindness of his own heart.
He didn't cut the rope because he didn't have enough money to pay for the extra two. He cut the rope because he didn't owe them anything, and didn't need to burden himself more than he already has. What may be morally wrong to you, would make almost perfect sense from the other POV.
And honestly, who knows what Strand would've done with the whole group if everything went smoothly. Its not like he owed them more than just the boat ride, so everything extra that's happened is still much More kind then they deserve.
carl and travis didn't have to kill those people there we're other people in scene with them!
ritual killing is murder, just more calculated.
but reed wasn't gonna turn cause he wasn't dead yet. He got shot in the mouth, if he was turning when chris shot him, he wouldn't have been knocked out. He would have been biting and snarling the whole time. Instead he turns minutes later in front of everybody.
I fear none of the kids are safe after this episode. Chris is psychotic and might have to be killed if he does something too extreme. Alicia has a target on her back and Nick is being heavily influenced by the pozole lady who's name I do not know.
Oh, I know that it made perfect sense in his mind! Even if it didn't, it was still his ship, and therefore, he was the authority. I completely respect his right to choose who gets on-board and who doesn't. Which, in my slightly conflicted opinion, doesn't mean that it wasn't morally wrong, because Jake ended up dying because of that. I thought I had encapsulated it well enough in my last paragraph.
What did Charlie say about Jake's death? I totally forgot.
It's either Celia or Cecelia, I believe.
I'll give you that for TWD, it could've been Maggie. But if it wasn't Travis, it would've been Nic.
Idk why these people don't just commit suicide instead of forcing someone to kill them. I'd say just give me the gun
Yes I agree
Just like Connors brother told him. Ah shit I kinda hope that Chris can pull it together and hopefully Travis and Chris leave the group to actually look out for each other...
I honestly think I'm the only one who thinks Madisen will be the fall of the group. She seems to have almost everything figured out but her children, which sucks because her kids are probably the best ones to trust in this ZA. I mean compared to what Chris and Ofelia (which she's doing nothing bad really, but nothing important also) are doing, these guys are badass one and two.
Would not have a problem if everyone died but these two, and maybe Daniel
Where's Darryl listed for TWD credits? He's either second or third
no she asked madison to do it because she said it would ruin TRavis.
That'd be a bit risky considering people respond so aggressively to discussion of PTSD triggers these days, and so they could easily be labelled as SJWs and lose viewers, but I'd like to see it happen.
How do you know that Reed wasn't dead or close to death yet? The guy had been impaled. We don't what happened between the time that Reed was telling Chris off and when Chris shot him-maybe things went south very fast. Even still, the only reason shooting Reed became a problem was when the group realized they could use Reed as leverage. Chris did act brashly, but how was he supposed to know that there was a change in plans; it's not like the group notified the guard of the deal. But also, homeboy was only going yo trade Reed for Travis; he wasn't going to let Alicia go, so in that respect, Chris did the group a solid by giving them a way to get both Alicia and Travis back---the chaos that ensued from the trade off was enough to give Alicia a chance to get away.
Implementing the real-life struggle of people with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would be far from acting like a—cringe-worthy—social justice warrior, in my opinion, though it's true, some people could mix it up. Besides, I had never heard about them pronouncing a word about mental disorders?
but Chris shot the guy cause he was gonna turn and he still turned. so not only did he foul up by shooting him, but he didn't even accomplish what he set out to do which was stop him from turning.
[removed]
Your thread had nothing to do with The Walking Dead, and was outright disrespectful toward the moderators. You even admit that you didn't expect it to last five minutes. Why do you act surprised?
Sorry I don't understand what this means?
I have never seen a social justice warrior talk about mental disorders, like PTSD is.
Wow...that makes me question how you define SJW?
Like I campaign for trigger warnings as disabilities rep of my university college, and it's all to do with mental disorders. That's the prime motivator behind trigger warnings. Yet I'm called an SJW occassionally (I do think people use that term excessively and generally when referring to a viewpoint they disagree with).
Or is SJW more about an attitude than a viewpoint? Can someone fully support trigger warnings without being an SJW? If so, what specific attitude defines an SJW and how do you ensure that you perceive it accurately?
From my understanding, an SJW is somebody who defends groups generally discriminated upon—racial minorities, sexual minorities, transgender and agender individuals, females, religious minorities—while also stating that these groups are superior to their less discriminated counterparts—whites, heterosexuals, cisgender individuals, males, religious majorities. A white, heterosexual, cisgender male is evil by nature, going by this reasoning, which, you might or might not agree, doing this is just as bad.
It's fairly easy to recognize an SJW. Somebody is a "warrior" when they are cheering up a group of generally discriminated-upon individuals while demonizing everyone who doesn't fit that category. It's an even bigger of a double standard when you only defend some of these discriminated groups while completely ignoring others.
I am in favor of using trigger warnings, and those who support trigger warnings, in order to help those with mental disorders, are not necessarily an SJW, as long as they do not bash on people who do not have a mental disorder.
By the way, I congrat you for defending trigger warnings!
With the SJW thing people immediately think of someone who exaggerates everything to be a trigger or discrimination. Whatever the word actually means has been lost. Social justice warrior basically equals an aggressive keyboard warrior who bleats on about stuff they dont really understand with poor facts and biased sources, if even that.
Its probably depends on what you consider a trigger and what can cause someone to have one or what could trigger them. Triggered has been so exaggerated and downgraded to someone being upset about something when its actually a very severe response to deep rooted trauma. Tumblr and other places have made the word a joke so now its a punchline to overly offended culture.
Hm, well I find this confusing in terms of what Bettertosleep says because there's a massive range of things which can, scientifically, trigger PTS.