Are people abusing the concept of a trigger?

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

good thing that was totally called for.

I apologise. It was definitely wrong of me to call you on your exact actions. I will refrain from the truth in the future.

Well, I won't. But I will consider your feelings first. Even if it is kind of hypocritical to make accusations like that at me, and then complain that it wasn't called for when done to you.

call me on my exact actions? did I "rant on things I don't understand"? that's an awful lot of assumptions you've made when I simply asked you to play nice with tippy when he was being genuine with you. the smug attitude wasn't necessary.

Well, I won't. But I will consider your feelings first. Even if it is kind of hypocritical to make accusations like that at me, and then complain that it wasn't called for when done to you.

where was I a hypocrite?

Next time, maybe practice what you preach.

and what did I preach that I didn't practice?

 

[renegade7]

I think "triggered" is basically a wishy-washy way of saying "upset".

And I have to say this. A proper liberal education (and by "liberal" I do not mean politically liberal but rather in the sense of the liberal arts, ie, the humanities, literature, social studies, natural sciences, etc.) SHOULD upset you. The point of liberal studies is to expose you to those things in the world you would not likely encounter otherwise. Sometimes that's because the subject is esoteric, like cell biology. Other times it's because the subject is taboo, and that can be due to the fact that certain subjects are upsetting and do require one to really re-think their image of society.

You SHOULD be upset that as many as 1 in 4 women and as many as 1 in 8 men will be victims of sexual violence. You SHOULD be upset that in most cases, those incidents won't even be investigated either because of cultural toxicity ("men don't get raped" or "she brought it on herself because of her outfit/because she was drunk/ etc") or because investigators simply do not have the ability to investigate such claims at all. You SHOULD be upset that there are politicians who want to make women pay for their own rape investigations, try to contrive definitions of rape such that they fit in with their particular social agenda (ie Todd Akin's gaffe), or that some legislatures do not even define rape as something that can happen to a man. You SHOULD be upset that there are institutions, even here in our "enlightened" society, and even entire cultures and governments that not only condone rape but encourage it as a means to maintain social order or who view women as second-class citizens that ought to be the property of a man. You SHOULD be disturbed by female genital mutilation and what it implies for male circumcision. You SHOULD be disturbed that "virginity testing", despite being utterly pseudoscientific, is not only a massive industry in some places but that failing to pass the "virginity test" can get you anything from reduced social status to death by stoning.

You are not going to solve those problems unless you understand them. You cannot understand them without confronting them. A number of ideologues consistently try to simplify those problems down to the point at which they easily align with people's pre-existing conceptions, such as presenting the fact that rape still exists because of the direct influence of some malicious "patriarchy", or on the opposite end of the tumblr-MRA spectrum, claim that "rape" is just something cried by feminists with an ax to grind, resulting in an endless and completely counterproductive round of the "Who's got it Worse?" Olympics.

It's very easy to pick a side and make it a simple matter of good guys and bad guys. It's comfortable when the world can be easily divided between heroes and villains. It's easy to think you live in a world where rape doesn't happen to innocent people or to treat it as a vague "other" that only happens to people in the news and characters on crime dramas, or to not think of it as anything more than the "1 in 4 women" statistic, or that it only happens to women because of the direct influence of "the patriarchy".

Understanding these things will not be a comfortable experience. But if you say that "it's uncomfortable so I don't want to think about it" you are not helping a cause, you are choosing to remain ignorant and taking society further away from any sort of solutions. If your goal is ignorance, you do not belong in college. Go back home and leave the seat open for someone who actually wants to learn.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeh that seems about roight actually. I don't like the Escapist much right now either, the amount of SJW and feminism threads have been spiralling out of controls for so damn long. *sigh* I'm not cut out for these threads, I can't joke around without people taking me super seriously. But these buzzword/super srs threads are like 90% of what this site is and I get bored when I don't have much to post. I'll just go back to just leaving these threads be again, they just aren't fun y'know?

A decent rule of thumb is to look at the content of such a thread first. When you see people responding on the topic of "triggers" in the exact way they've been responding, consider that your light-hearted jest, which looks rather like the exact sort of ranty thing others are ranting about, might not be taken as such. It's a "know your audience" sort of principle.

I do get the concept of what a trigger is, I just can't fully believe the sheer volume of people crying it legitimately. Looking around a bit maybe there's a lot of The Boy Who Cried Trigger going on a lot? Cuz I always thought it was only used by people looking for maximum attention whoring and easy mode argument cop outs. I'm not insulting anyone who legit has a real problem just to clarify.

There are people crying wolf. The issue is that people have become dismissive of the concept overall, which is sort of repeated a lot in this thread and I've seen worse on less moderated sites.

But one of the primary issues is, at least with "the boy who cried wolf," the lesson is about ruining your own credibility. The issue in this instance is that one person cries wolf and another is discounted. I've already mentioned my feelings on self-diagnoses and using real conditions as excuses on the internet (aspergers is used for both, for example), but that doesn't mean everyone you meet who speaks of these things is full of it. Also, we can't actually tell the difference between someone with a real condition, someone who has self-diagnosed themselves, and someone who is just using it as an excuse to be a jackass.

I do suffer from PTSD. I actually hate using the term because of a different association. I associate it with combat veterans, and I don't tend to think of my experiences as being "equal" to that. I avoid a lot of the terminology, even though the "flashbacks" I suffer are indistinguishable from a soldier's except in terms of actual content. And I'm not particularly enamoured with the concept of a "trigger warning" in the first place. Not personally, anyway.

But the idea, as someone described better than I would, is not particularly to shut down conversation but rather to give people who have suffered through these things and might have PTSD, or another anxiety disorder, a chance to choose how to deal with this. And people do deal with things differently. Avoidance is generally unhealthy, but it's very often a bad idea for people to just be immersed in the situations that cause panic (though I'm told there are therapies that work that way, I don't know if they help anyone). But people do react differently and can take different levels of...well, anything. It's not even just trauma-related anxiety.

The concept of a trigger warning and some use--even on Tumblr--is/can be merited. It gets overused. There are people who cry wolf, people who don't understand what it's like to really be in such a situation, and oh yeah. There's another party worth mentioning. There are supporters who can either be legitimately zealous or be the so-called "Social Justice Warriors" and both can end up trampling on the folks they're "helping." Of course, you can't readily tell the legit from the jerks there, either, and people have every bit as much a tendency to lump everyone into the "jerk" category rather than give the benefit of the doubt, or evaluate based on circumstances. Because if snark is the primary language of the internet, cynicism is a close runner-up.

And honestly, a lot of people seem to balk at the concept of "not being a dick." A trigger warning, or even just a content warning at all, only requires a slight bit of forethought, yet there are people balking at it in any context.

 

[nameless023]

I have two opinions on this whole "trigger" business. On one hand I think that triggers are a good idea when used properly for the proper audience. I once read someone say that triggers are the "contains peanuts" of artistic content (be it literature, photography, video, etc) and it made a lot of sense. People react differently to different things and if you tell me that this guy/girl is going to have bad memories and/or have an actual negative reaction because of content that makes them remember some kind of abuse they experienced (or any other valid example) then I will agree trigger warnings are valid.

On the other hand, the internet has the tendency of exaggerating and abusing everything to the point where it gets dumbed down and turned into a joke. Just take a look at the picture of the pomegranate tw on the first page and you'll see how it has gone from "this makes me think of a terrible experience I had, please tag it so I dont have to think about it again" to "oMG hoW dAre you!!1! i dont like this, tag it so I dont have to see it. asswipe". everybody hides in their own comfort zones and they get offended if anyone dares to burst that bubble simply because they dont cater to their extremely specific special needs.

Tumblr is specially bad for this, everybody is so sensitive in there. I could go there and post "I ate a banana once and it made me sick, please tag any banana related posts under 'banana tw' so I don't get nauseous again" and I'm sure I would see a few morons actually tagging their posts and being "supportive" of such stupidity.

And I'm no expert on the matter but, I doubt pretending a specific bad thing doesnt exist and hiding behind trigger warnings is particularly healthy, regardless of its validity. I'd guess actually facing what triggers you (idk, reading a book that mentions/is related to/is about the topic or something) would help that person to overcome whatever fear they have (for valid triggers) or simply make them grow up (for fake triggers).

 

[Jake Martinez]

It's amazing to me that certain people live with so much privilege that they believe they can dictate the terms of what unpleasant life experiences they will have.

And here I was assuming that often life was unfair, or cruel, or just down right nasty, and a test of someones character was how they dealt with this fact. How stupid of me. All I needed to do was create a list of things that I didn't want to see/hear/read/think about and problem solved!

 

[J Tyran]

My tinfoil hat must be wearing out but I find it damn convenient that tuition of rape law is decreasing when many of the more radical feminists want rape law to be thrown out and the simple accusation to hold weight instead of evidence and a fair trial.

I just love these kind of coincidences.

 

[JimB]

I once read someone say that triggers are the "contains peanuts" of artistic content (be it literature, photography, video, etc) and it made a lot of sense.

Oh, that's good. That's really good. I like that.

Many of the more radical feminists want rape law to be thrown out and the simple accusation to hold weight instead of evidence and a fair trial.

I would like a citation for that assertion, please.

 

[J Tyran]

Many of the more radical feminists want rape law to be thrown out and the simple accusation to hold weight instead of evidence and a fair trial.

I would like a citation for that assertion, please.

Never read anything by Amanda Marcotte then? Like the blogs where she called people "rape loving scum" for defending the young men accused of gang rape when the Duke lacrosse case fell to pieces (the DNA of the accused didn't match the physical evidence and the story was completely divorced from the statements of independent witnesses) and she was part of a cyber "lynch mob".

She supported them being harassed and persecuted too as well as the trial by media, actions which can impact on the chances of suspects getting a fair trial.

Then there was her more recent outbursts over the UVA gang rape accusation which once again flew in complete defiance of eyewitness statements, she deleted all the comments and blogs for the Duke lacrosse case but there are loads of other sources for it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/21/feminism_and_amanda_marcotte_106038.html

Then there is Zerlina "we should automattically beleive rape accusations" Maxwell.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims/

That one speaks for itself, instead of believing neither side and getting to the truth people should always believe the accuser first. Which is in complete contradiction to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[JimB]

Never read anything by Amanda Marcotte then?

No, I have not. Further, you originally said many feminists are espousing these beliefs, whereas, while I don't know her and guess I probably ought not to assume, Amanda Marcotte strikes me as one person.

Then there is Zerlina "We should automatically believe rape accusations" Maxwell.

That is not quite what the article you linked says. It says belief should be the default until an investigation is conducted, and that she is describing a moral proscription rather than a legal one. I do not think she is saying what you seem to believe she's saying.

 

[Olas]

As someone with GAD (generalized anxiety disorder) I definitely have triggers that I'm sensitive to, but I don't think the world should have to tiptoe around me and my issues, and likewise I don't want to have to tiptoe around everyone else's. Our issues are our own, and we should deal with them ourselves, or with professional help, but not expect the whole world to bend itself to accommodate us.

That being said, if you strongly suspect that something you're going to say will set off someone's triggers, it's nice to give a trigger warning. You don't HAVE to, and you're not a dick if you don't, especially if you don't realize it might be a trigger, but it's still something good to do, and a brief trigger warning doesn't really cause any harm.

 

[J Tyran]

Never read anything by Amanda Marcotte then?

No, I have not. Further, you originally said many feminists are espousing these beliefs, whereas, while I don't know her and guess I probably ought not to assume, Amanda Marcotte strikes me as one person.

Then there is Zerlina "We should automatically believe rape accusations" Maxwell.

That is not quite what the article you linked says. It says belief should be the default until an investigation is conducted, and that she is describing a moral proscription rather than a legal one. I do not think she is saying what you seem to believe she's saying.

Two quick and obvious examples, I wasn't writing a thesis and merely provide a pair of sources. Generally and as you prove here it isn't worth going to much effort as forum goers will typically scoff and dismiss any efforts you go to, like you're doing so forgive me if I wont go to any effort to link every time a radical feminist (note I'm not saying feminists) has said something egregious about how rape accusations should be handled (I mean all you have to do is go to Tumblr for a while to see that).

You obviously didn't understand the second article either automatically believing any accusations of any crime out of morality rather than legality is exactly whats wrong with it, morals should never have anything to do with due process.

Ever.

Facts, witness statements and physical evidence are the only things that matter. Otherwise innocent people will get punished for things they didn't do and when it can be proven the prosecution bungled a case guilty people can walk away scot free. Even having the investigators going on the assumption of "lets prove this person is guilty" rather than "lets find out whos guilty" or "lets see if this person is guilty" can be dangerous and can skew investigations or lead to the ignoring of other suspects, some of the worst miscarriages of justice have been caused by a biased or assumptive investigation.

Thats exactly what happened with the Duke lacrosse players, the DNA evidence not fitting into the investigation was ignored and almost suppressed because the prosecutors where initially unwilling to believe it as it did not match their wish to press the case.

 

[JimB]

Two quick and obvious examples, I wasn't writing a thesis and merely provide a pair of sources.

I really don't get why people seem to think it's okay to spread misinformation when it's not a college thesis. Why does everyone always specify college theses as the only time it's not okay to misattribute or misrepresent what someone said?

Generally, and as you prove here, it isn't worth going to much effort as forum goers will typically scoff and dismiss any efforts you go to.

I did neither of those things. I told you I disagree with your reading of one of the two texts you provided. Disagreeing with you is not dismissing you, and I really don't know why you'd think otherwise.

Forgive me if I won't go to any effort to link every time a radical feminist (note I'm not saying feminists) has said something egregious about how rape accusations should be handled.

I'm not asking you to do that, either. I asked you to prove that the thing you said, the thing you said without any prompting from anyone else, the bit about how many radical feminists want accusations to be equivalent to criminal convictions, is actually true. If you refuse to do so, then I suppose I will offer forgiveness to the degree you feel forgiveness is required, but I'm not especially interested in blame or condemnation. I will just continue to be unconvinced by the things you claim are true.

You obviously didn't understand the second article either. Automatically believing any accusations of any crime out of morality rather than legality is exactly what's wrong with it; morals should never have anything to do with due process.

I feel you are not expressing yourself very well here. Both the article's author and I have already said that moral responses should be distinct from legal responses, so exactly what is your complaint here?

Facts, witness statements and physical evidence are the only things that matter.

Uh...yeah, that's why the article went out of its way to say it was not suggesting any changes be made to the legal system. You seem to be arguing against a stance no one has taken to try to prevent an outcome everyone involved, including your supposed enemies, wish to avoid.

Even having the investigators going on the assumption of "let's prove this person is guilty" rather than "let's find out who's guilty" or "let's see if this person is guilty" can be dangerous and can skew investigations or lead to the ignoring of other suspects, some of the worst miscarriages of justice have been caused by a biased or assumptive investigation.

True, but since the article's author never suggested that is how investigators ought to approach crimes and explicitly said she wants the contrary, I am confused as to why you bring it up.

Look, I'm not out to get you, man. I don't want to start changing laws to make rape accusations unimpeachable. I don't get why you're being so defensive about this. You said a thing I have never heard and have no experience of is true; I asked you to back it up; you provided me with examples I do not find convincing. That's it. I'm not willfully dismissing you in order to further my agenda of forcibly castrating all men or anything. So with that in mind, is there any way we could approach this discussion more calmly?

 

[J Tyran]

is there any way we could approach this discussion more calmly?

There was a discussion? Must have missed that part, sorry.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Yeh that seems about roight actually. I don't like the Escapist much right now either, the amount of SJW and feminism threads have been spiralling out of controls for so damn long. *sigh* I'm not cut out for these threads, I can't joke around without people taking me super seriously. But these buzzword/super srs threads are like 90% of what this site is and I get bored when I don't have much to post. I'll just go back to just leaving these threads be again, they just aren't fun y'know?

A decent rule of thumb is to look at the content of such a thread first. When you see people responding on the topic of "triggers" in the exact way they've been responding, consider that your light-hearted jest, which looks rather like the exact sort of ranty thing others are ranting about, might not be taken as such. It's a "know your audience" sort of principle.

I do get the concept of what a trigger is, I just can't fully believe the sheer volume of people crying it legitimately. Looking around a bit maybe there's a lot of The Boy Who Cried Trigger going on a lot? Cuz I always thought it was only used by people looking for maximum attention whoring and easy mode argument cop outs. I'm not insulting anyone who legit has a real problem just to clarify.

There are people crying wolf. The issue is that people have become dismissive of the concept overall, which is sort of repeated a lot in this thread and I've seen worse on less moderated sites.

But one of the primary issues is, at least with "the boy who cried wolf," the lesson is about ruining your own credibility. The issue in this instance is that one person cries wolf and another is discounted. I've already mentioned my feelings on self-diagnoses and using real conditions as excuses on the internet (aspergers is used for both, for example), but that doesn't mean everyone you meet who speaks of these things is full of it. Also, we can't actually tell the difference between someone with a real condition, someone who has self-diagnosed themselves, and someone who is just using it as an excuse to be a jackass.

I do suffer from PTSD. I actually hate using the term because of a different association. I associate it with combat veterans, and I don't tend to think of my experiences as being "equal" to that. I avoid a lot of the terminology, even though the "flashbacks" I suffer are indistinguishable from a soldier's except in terms of actual content. And I'm not particularly enamoured with the concept of a "trigger warning" in the first place. Not personally, anyway.

But the idea, as someone described better than I would, is not particularly to shut down conversation but rather to give people who have suffered through these things and might have PTSD, or another anxiety disorder, a chance to choose how to deal with this. And people do deal with things differently. Avoidance is generally unhealthy, but it's very often a bad idea for people to just be immersed in the situations that cause panic (though I'm told there are therapies that work that way, I don't know if they help anyone). But people do react differently and can take different levels of...well, anything. It's not even just trauma-related anxiety.

The concept of a trigger warning and some use--even on Tumblr--is/can be merited. It gets overused. There are people who cry wolf, people who don't understand what it's like to really be in such a situation, and oh yeah. There's another party worth mentioning. There are supporters who can either be legitimately zealous or be the so-called "Social Justice Warriors" and both can end up trampling on the folks they're "helping." Of course, you can't readily tell the legit from the jerks there, either, and people have every bit as much a tendency to lump everyone into the "jerk" category rather than give the benefit of the doubt, or evaluate based on circumstances. Because if snark is the primary language of the internet, cynicism is a close runner-up.

And honestly, a lot of people seem to balk at the concept of "not being a dick." A trigger warning, or even just a content warning at all, only requires a slight bit of forethought, yet there are people balking at it in any context.

Pretty much this.

And, to be quite honest? Yeah, I've seen more people??and this includes Tumblr bloggers??conflating triggers with "being offended" as a dismissal tactic. (As in, the whole stunt of claiming that one is "triggered" by being called on their crap.) As others have already pointed out: it's more-or-less the equivalent of the film rating system or a warning label. (Unless, of course, one is going to argue that those are unnecessary and for wimps?)

 

[JimB]

Is there any way we could approach this discussion more calmly?

There was a discussion? Must have missed that part, sorry.

Or you could make a snide comment calling me a liar, though I wish you would have just been honest enough to say "no."

 

[Hammartroll]

What if Mahmood having his apartment vandalized emotionally affected him in a harmful way? Not very thought full of the SJWs, and by that I mean they just don't think very thoroughly in general.

 

[J Tyran]

Is there any way we could approach this discussion more calmly?

There was a discussion? Must have missed that part, sorry.

Or you could make a snide comment calling me a liar, though I wish you would have just been honest enough to say "no."

Sorry if I have no desire to get into a "nice fest" with you, you don't get to nitpick over individual words, throw around accusations of "defensiveness" and argue over semantics and then say "hey lets discuss this calmly".

I was never wound up to begin with, you seemed to have little interest in discussion and now you throw around accusations of "lying"? Funny that, the comment may or may not have been "snide" but I don't think the word "liar" means what you think it means.

 

[JimB]

You don't get to nitpick over individual words, throw around accusations of "defensiveness," and argue over semantics, and then say, "Hey, let's discuss this calmly."

When you accuse someone of saying something she explicitly did not say, and then dismiss people pointing that verifiable fact out as "nitpicking" or "semantics," I really don't know what conclusion I am to draw other than that you are being defensive. If you would care to explain yourself, go ahead.

 

[Mechamorph]

I believe the concept of "triggers" is not unlike the treatment of Asperger's Syndrome. There are real sufferers of Asperger's out there, duly diagnosed and treated by professional psychologists and, if necessary, psychiatrists. And then there are those people who claim the title as a justification for all sorts of bad behaviour. Triggers are the same; if you have been through a truly harrowing, traumatic experience it is not unusual for physical reminders to be rather upsetting. PTSD has had many, many names from Combat Fatigue to Shell Shock and its pretty well documented if not understood. For such individuals we avoid triggers out of consideration and compassion, it is not something you can force out of people. I did see some responses asking what is the difference between demanding that others respect self-proclaimed "triggers" and others stating that it is up to the individual to do so. That ultimately it is about forcing your will on others. This is patently fallacious. It is akin to wanting to shoot someone and someone wanting you not to shoot them. Asking not to be forcibly subject to all of other people's idiosyncrasies outside the boundaries of good sense and common human decency is something that I believe most of us can agree on.

As for the given examples, this is ludicrous to a hilarious degree. If aspiring lawyers can refuse to learn rape law than should police officers ask to be excused from arresting members of their own race because they find it racist? Should soldiers avoid weapon training or doctors decline studying surgery because it offends their sensibilities? If you signed on the dotted line for a particular profession, you are not allowed to choose to avoid the parts you find unpleasant or distasteful.

On a related note, is it not unproductive to admit to triggers on the internet? I would believe that is not so much feeding a troll but rather closer to smothering yourself in Worcestershire sauce and declaring open season.

 

[Mechamorph]

What if Mahmood having his apartment vandalized emotionally affected him in a harmful way? Not very thought full of the SJWs, and by that I mean they just don't think very thoroughly in general.

I would contend that, rather sadly, it is *their* own feelings that matter and you are correct that they appear to not give a toss about anyone else's. Not that this is a new thing mind you, humanity has often justified atrocity through some given insult even if the atrocity largely outweighs the insult given.