thaluikhain said:
It is cumulative, yes. But how many words did you just use in your post? If you were to cut down every post you make by 4 words, that's have a greater impact than not adding "trigger warning" followed by one word.
You're right, however I'd argue that there is actual productivity in dialogs, and I am addressing statements you made for the sake of mutual understanding. coming to greater conclusions, all that high minded democratic rationalist shit.
I actually want to understand more this pathological alturism.
Also, I've always written this way, I have a problem, and likely still do have a problem making myself understood through non-verbal means. I did say I need accommodation.
Anyway I make a good foil by being so wordy
In hindsight I should have asked you to define where or how that trigger warning is to be implemented. typing on tumblr, in literature, etc is rather fast.
but I know quiet well trigger warnings have been applied elsewhere.
thaluikhain said:
cleric of the order said:
However I should for the sake of clarity stress I do not believe the triggers themselves are government funded, I actually meant that given the choice between triggerwarnings and government funding for mental health, the latter wins out.
Which is a choice that nobody will ever be faced with, so it's a false dichotomy.
that's a simple way of putting it but I suppose you are not off the mark with that.
I should watch my careless tongue around you, you might just bite it off.
The problem is, through whatever logical fallacy hole I am in, I cannot see an alternative.
There needs to be a gain or a loss(outside tumblr).
If one introduces trigger warnings en-masse and than it seems redundant if medication and therapy is also subsidized.
feel free to argue that point.
off hand I have to ask, I do remember you complaining about a certian branch of psychology, if you have any clinical psychological knowledge and some sources I could read if this would actually help someone suffering from this condition please do so.
Because from what I understand it functions like those that have disassociation and other trauma responses. From what I have been told, persons sexually abused disassociate during consensual sex thanks to unconscious association and trauma continuity.
If I am not mistaken the mechanism is the same, association. Though not directly equivalency, it is admittedly wrong to suggest that all rape survivors with ptsd would respond to the amorphous idea of sex in this way. However it is by nature reasonable to suggest the following; all rape Survivors with ptsd could suffer rape flashbacks because of any stimuli described, displayed or suggesting, or simply containing the suggested aspects of such a scene (tones, body language, power dynamics in bed, positions, places, or simply identifying with one of the characters), inside and outside media, by the very nature of association. Which would suggest that a rape trigger warning would not protect someone with PTSD resultant from rape flashback of the unpredictable nature.
that is not to say that there is no protection, just that it is an unreliable factor.
There is also the matter of distinction and definition of those trigger warnings. Would also mean attempted rape, implied sexual violence, possible sexual violence or any violence intermixed with sex be possible trigger people with trauma resultant from rape and thus need to be tagged as rape.As any variation form of sexual violence, such as molestation, sexual torture/mutilation (though one could argue that rape is the super group, I make the distinction because these overlap into torture, child abuse, abuse and anything else arriving from non sexual violence), hell genital surgery could.
But when one fall under the trigger super group of sexual violence and not of rape.
And that leaves the question why is rape necessary, one could simply state, the explicit sexual nature in some instances.
Likewise other Traumas memories of that a violent nature could be triggered by sexual violence. (being sexually abused into child abuse, torture for obvious reasons, etc,etc). PTSD based in miscellaneous trauma (distress) that is not necessarily violent or applied by human/personified free agents such as natural disasters, (as defied by the APA), non deliberate violent actions, starvation under great stress again could have similar responses with violence. or sexually violent depictions. As trauma is largely caused by violence this seems superfluous (though not the entirety).
Things linked to trauma while not limited to explicit content, makes up the majority of explicit content through association. This leads to an interesting conundrum for me, if trigger warnings are to applied in a utilitarian manner than why not apply it to all instances of violence and not just explicit as trauma is largely the result of violent actions or at least the ones fixated one and one can reasonably account for. Would it not be best to say, ?warning the following contains violence and sexual themes? or "warnings this contains things that some viewers find offensive" in things that can mange it. In opposition to specify something that is not as preventative as possible, too specific and rather inefficient.
