Essay On Rhetoric Of Harm And Triggering Me

When you think of a movement, a revolution, what do you imagine? Protests and action. Maybe even war and violence. But often, the most powerful force of change is words. Without the printing press and the ability to mass-produce texts, how would the Age of Enlightenment have begun? Without speakers and preachers, how would causes gain leaders and supporters? Words are what define a movement so Halberstam argues in his essay “You Are Triggering me! The Neo-Liberal Rhetoric of Harm, Danger and Trauma”, the modern liberals must choose the words they use to define their movement more carefully.
Background
In Halberstam’s essay, he discusses how the controversies in queer communities over language have led to restriction of

However, it seems difficult to believe that Halberstam’s actual audience matches intended audience when he uses such violent words filled with not only criticism, but also blatant insults, while speaking to them. Halberstam’s strong, accusatory language creates an interesting relationship between himself and his audience because what reader reads just to be offended? With his constant insults towards modern activist, how could he possibly reach the audience he seeks?

When Halberstam claims that trying to avoid sensitive language and create safe spaces is censorship, which arguably should upset the reader on its own, he takes it a step further and insults the reader (5). He deliberately causes tension to inflame the reader, to agitate them, which can sometimes be a useful tactic to enhance the reader’s interest in the topic or force them to recognize that they have opinions on it. For example, when he states, “let me be clear—saying that you feel harmed by another queer person’s use of a reclaimed word like tranny and organizing against the use of that word is NOT social activism. It is censorship”(5). That declaration is clear and a bit harsh, but it grabs attention, and bringing censorship up makes the reader think ‘wow, I guess this is really serious’, whether they agree with the argument about it or