Red vs Blue takes on Trigger Warnings

[Something Amyss]

They're not even mad that the conversation exists. They're "mad" about it. It gets them all riled up and excited.

Yeah, there's a reason I compared it to my porn searches. I probably could have gone for something less stigmatising, but I don't think it encapsulates what I suspect the intent here is.

It's why they stuff their feeds with it, scour social media sites for evidence of it, form "consumer revolts" that are functionally obsessed with it, and spend vast dollops of their free time arguing about it.

Yeah, I've been guilty of reactionary responses to SM myself.

Someone helpfully posted this a while ago:

[/quote]

Stolen.

I only ever use Tumblr for anime GIFs and fanart, personally. My girlfriend follows a few comedy/artist blogs, but that's about it. Suppose it's got something for everyone.

And doesn't that make you angry?

 

[Fappy]

And doesn't that make you angry?

It does when they don't load properly! I swear, Tumblr's image galleries are borked half the time I look at 'em!!! >:O

 

[Something Amyss]

It does when they don't load properly! I swear, Tumblr's image galleries are borked half the time I look at 'em!!! >:O

YEAH! LET'S BURN DOWN TUMBLR!

 

[Fappy]

It does when they don't load properly! I swear, Tumblr's image galleries are borked half the time I look at 'em!!! >:O

YEAH! LET'S BURN DOWN TUMBLR!

I like your style, Zach. You get the matches, I'll bring the kerosene.

 

[Something Amyss]

I like your style, Zach. You get the matches, I've bring the kerosene.

Well, fantaticism is in this season year lifetime.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You claim your not strawmanning but you seized on the fact I said Vid instead of video, and use that to avoid adressing my post? Isn't that... strawmanning?

No.

A "straw man" is an exaggerated/distorted version of either your opponents argument or what you presume your opponents argument is. Something that is very easily argued against or "pushed down", as if it were a man made of straw. "Straw man" is not shorthand for "arguing in bad faith" or "evasion" or "comment I dislike".

Also see "Tilting at Windmills" for arguing against straw men of your own creation when your hypothetical opponent is in absentia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications. It may also connote an importune, unfounded, and vain effort against confabulated adversaries for a vain goal.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It still fits when I raise a point and Dynast Bass goes out of her way not to address it, lumping me in with "that other group".

No, it doesn't. What motivations Dynast does or does not attribute to you privately is sort of irrelevant. Simply evading a question is not straw-manning you. You may feel like he's arguing in bad faith, but a "straw man" is very specific fallacious argument. It's not a catch-all term used to indicate bad debating form.

But yeah this is why people hate trigger warnings. You engage in people complaining about it and they give you this kind of response instead.

I'm sure there are a great many reasons why "people" hate trigger warnings. In many cases it appears to be because they're offended by the concept. I'm sure you can appreciate the irony in that.

 

[happyninja42]

There isn't any good way to be able to predict what will/won't cause a trigger. So, it leaves people with the choice of either not bothering with the warnings at all, and getting bitched at by a certain sector of the audience for insensitivity. Or trying to cover everything, and having a ridiculously long list of things that might upset someone.

Yes and no. While people can be triggered by all sorts of things, there are some things which are much more likely to be triggers than others. Trigger warnings are going to miss things, sure, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't give warnings for the more common ones. One of the more common arguments against having them is that you can't warn against everything, so warning against anything is a bad idea.

As an aside, Shakesville has gotten rid of trigger warnings and has "content notes" instead. In that people might not be triggered by reading about gang rapes of kids, for example, but might not want to read all the graphic details just now.

Oh I agree. As I said later in my post, I don't see any problem with providing those warnings for the viewer. I was simply voicing the complaints that I've seen from other parties about trigger warnings. I wasn't saying that I agreed with the logic of it, just that it's the stance I've seen presented in the past. I tend to play middle ground a lot when I'm posting things, and presenting the opposing view from my own in a reasonable (if it's possible) manner.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Oh, good, I'd feared RvB had changed. My own thoughts:

The old saying is "you need to get back on the horse": a reference to if you fall off a horse you need to get on and try riding again to confront your fear of falling off again or you end up living with the fear of horses the rest of your life. Trigger Warnings are like telling someone it's okay to not get back on the horse, that it's okay to be afraid of the horse, and in the extreme, that the world can and should rework itself so that your fear of horses doesn't inconvenience you. It's just enabling avoidance.

I get people are trying to help, but it's like keeping your child from getting a needle because it will hurt, and forgetting the disease the needle is trying to prevent will be longer term and potentially worse. This seemingly increased need for trigger warnings is just a sign of how much untreated mental health issues we have in this country, and our going along with it, a sign we'd rather label everything than deal with it.

 

[EternallyBored]

Oh, good, I'd feared RvB had changed. My own thoughts:

The old saying is "you need to get back on the horse": a reference to if you fall off a horse you need to get on and try riding again to confront your fear of falling off again or you end up living with the fear of horses the rest of your life. Trigger Warnings are like telling someone it's okay to not get back on the horse, that it's okay to be afraid of the horse, and in the extreme, that the world can and should rework itself so that your fear of horses doesn't inconvenience you. It's just enabling avoidance.

I get people are trying to help, but it's like keeping your child from getting a needle because it will hurt, and forgetting the disease the needle is trying to prevent will be longer term and potentially worse. This seemingly increased need for trigger warnings is just a sign of how much untreated mental health issues we have in this country, and our going along with it, a sign we'd rather label everything than deal with it.

Poor comparison, trigger warnings are ideally used in therapy to prepare a client for a situation that will cause significant distress. You don't confront a fear of riding by strapping a person to a horse and forcing them to race in the Kentucky derby, likewise you don't help a traumatized combat vet by taking them to a fireworks show two weeks after the event that traumatized them. Trigger warnings are an intermediate step setting up a safe environment for a person to begin confronting their trauma.

Also, triggering events that can cause full blown panic attacks, paranoia and even self-harm or lashing out at others is not even close to getting back on a horse after falling off. Confronting genuine trauma is something that has to be done carefully or you risk causing permanent psychological harm, trying to simplify it with a down-home folksy saying like "getting back in the saddle" does the issue a massive disservice.

Using a trigger warning as a way to never confront a trauma is also bad, but any method can be misused, ideally a trigger warning is there so that the client can mentally fortify themselves to confront something that causes an uncontrolled panic reaction, without that preparation the person has a greater chance of completely withdrawing from the situation rather than progressing. Trigger warnings can't be put on everything of course, they are most valuable in therapeutic settings and on articles aimed at at-risk populations, like blogs about PTSD or overcoming trauma. This is not an ideal situation, if we put trigger warnings on everything then they would basically just be content ID warnings under a different name, and we already have content ID warnings on almost all forms of media already.