A Response To Apophemi on Triggers

Scott's response to Apophemi's argument that the rationalist community should accommodate triggers and avoid dispassionate discussion of dangerous ideas. His case: safe spaces cannot be safe for two groups at once; the rationalist community is itself a safe space for people who value reason over social acceptability; and - disclosed at length and rawly - he is himself intensely triggered by social justice (a college-newspaper incident that brought death threats and near-suicide), so "everybody's broken." Adds the yoga-class analogy for the gender imbalance and the "words are hidden inferences" point, and concedes the "slut" criticism. Tagged "things I will regret writing."

Quality 77 · Excellent. Emotionally raw, intellectually substantive, and much-discussed; the "safe spaces can't be universal / the community is itself a safe space" argument and the candid trauma disclosure give it real force and influence within the sphere. Held at low-Excellent because it is fairly inside-baseball and edgy/dated.

Claude’s paradigm shift 52 · Moderate. The "safe spaces can't be safe for everyone at once" framing and the inversion of who counts as "broken" were fresh and influential in the 2014 community debate; "taboo your words / words as hidden inferences" is borrowed from Yudkowsky. Moderate, edging notable.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. An emotionally raw, much-discussed response on safe spaces and triggers (safe spaces can't be universal; the rationalist community is itself one), given force by a candid trauma disclosure. Real influence within the sphere, but inside-baseball and dated, with no material change — low RWI.