evilthecat said:
I don't really see why not.. I mean, yeah, that wouldn't be a particularly nice thing to do, but sick people aren't always nice.
No, they aren't. But it takes a bad situation and makes it worse, because if you try to correct their objectively poor behavior, it makes you look like a complete dick just because the person is handicapped. And that's unfortunately, the kind of scenario I've seen played out with this trigger warning business.
It irks me because I know PTSD is no laughing matter, and when pretenders arrive on scene, it devalues an otherwise legitimate subject.
It's really not the purpose of a warning. I have a bottle of vitamin pills here with a warning on the back. It isn't there to ensure that noone ever takes vitamins, it's there as information on how to safely consume the product. That's all a warning is, information.. I agree that information can be misused, but we should not assume that the purpose of information is to be misused.
Allow me to rephrase: The purpose of a warning is always THREAT AVERSION. "Do X at risk Y".
The threat can be legitimate, or a bluff; like how certain species of frogs are red/bright colored to indicate they are poisonous; while other species that aren't poisonous mimic those that are. The "red" is the warning, whether it's true or not.
How we use risk and assess it is ALWAYS contextual. My field is meteorology, and a big ongoing issue on the operational side is HOW to properly express warnings and communicate risk to the public. It's much harder to get a largely apathetic and cynical public to pay attention than it seems on paper. Yet, when people get hurt, die, or are grossly inconvenienced by the weather, the operators are frequently blamed in some way (sometimes, rightly so).
"Your forecast was bad!" "Why didn't you issue a warning sooner!" "I don't want percentages, I want yes/no answers!"
But I digress. In any case, the ultimate purpose of a warning is to suggest avoidance of personal harm.
I don't know if that particular situation could have been reasonably avoided. Again, why does it matter? Why is this an excuse for not trying as and when it is possible?
I think you missed the purpose of the question: WAS IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO AVOID.
And your answer is uncertainty.
Until you can answer that question as "yes" with a reasonable degree of certainty while retaining a reasonable amount of burden on the general public, there's no it's not an "excuse", but valid skepticism.
Okay, so what makes it less pretentious or less lazy when people who don't have to fear that they might throw themselves under a bus in a fit of panic somehow think they can foister that "burden" onto those who do?
Which is false equivalence; you can't flip the tables and come from the other side because
the burden was never theirs to begin with if they don't have PTSD. They aren't the true source of the issue here.
As I've said before, it's mental trauma and thus not anywhere near as self-evident as something like blindness or physical handicapping.
If you can't countenance the possibility of a meaningful compromise, then I really don't think you have a leg to stand on in terms of accusing others of demanding more than they're entitled to.
So, if I don't "compromise", I'm a bad person. Doesn't matter what my reasoning has been thus far.
*sigh*
Because you've tried to level with me here, I'll give my proposed "compromise", out of mutual respect:
-MOST BROADLY: Let content creators post specific trigger warnings at their own volition. Don't force them to play God.
-COMMON BROADCAST: (large, regulated media) post the most common and relevant trigger conditions (war-time PTSD, rape).
-ELSE: Leave niche venues in peace. Those should be quick at self-correcting for exposure anyway, due to tiny audiences.
Apart from that, trying to mandate all possible relevant warnings is a pipe dream.
Outrage culture comes in many forms. Some people on this thread seem awful outraged by the idea that other people might have the temerity to be outraged. Of course, some people might say that part of having freedom of speech is the freedom to be outspoken in terms of what you find to be unacceptable in the world, but god forbid such a doctrine be extended to the wrong sort of people..
You say that last bit in mockery, but there is a kernel of truth in it.
Bad ideas are just as protected by free speed, and can proliferate via free speech as much as anything without opposition. Ergo, opposition to those bad ideas is a natural dynamic of possessing free speech.
The mistake, (and one frequently invoked on this site; especially in that aGG/GG mess), is that someone opposing a point is equivalent to revoking their free speech.
If someone starts a campaign proclaiming the Earth to be Flat (this actually happened not long ago, I kid you not), and the scientific community counters to debunk such lunacy, it doesn't automatically infringe on the others' right to free speech.
Being disproved (or even discredited) does not mean some magical boogeyman comes and takes your rights away.
People may not take you seriously anymore, but that isn't the same as losing free speech.
And the biggest detractors are in line with some kind of "anti-PC" zealots pushing all manner of equally ill-informed nonsense. I don't see the functional difference.
As a general rule, I agree; the biggest detractors tend to lean the most radical (or zealous).
It's the absence of reason and blind reliance on dogma or "the feels" that provokes zealotry, and provides the greatest drive to speak out on the matter.
Or more briefly: zealotry comes from the heart, not the head. In there, the functional difference lies.
When practical need and reasoning aligns with fervor, progress occurs. But that simply does not happen all that often now in today's "Politically correct" or "social justice" causes.
As a matter of principle, I want those with PTSD to live without fear of triggering episodes; but principles are not the same as practices, because what is practical ultimately, is what dictates reality.
So while I have my share of biases and "feels" on this subject, I haven't based my entire position on them, or tried to back-build my reasoning to support what would make me feel good because I know what is being asked is impractical or unfeasible.
That, and I believe there are better options of dealing with PTSD than having everyone else deal with it too.
I don't just mean in the sense that we all have to be inconvenienced by some nanny-stickers, but the burden of making sure when a content creator accidentally misses one and invokes needless (and damaging) outrage.
I'm against PC culture where it goes past being obnoxiously pretentious, and into the realm of oppressive and damaging.
If you think that makes me a zealot, then fine. Call me a zealot. I'm confident enough in my reasoning to know otherwise.
And to a degree, skepticism is good. I've encountered the misuse of trigger warnings (on both the political left and the political right). Not nearly as frequently as I've encountered the "OMG! SJWs are takin' our freederms" though, which makes me wonder who is really "outraged" here.
I'm actually in the opposite crowd, where exposure is concerned. In the past year, I've closed out accounts on several sites, entirely because the outrage and "corrective demands" were just getting crazy. (and no, Tumblr isn't one of them; holds no appeal to me)
I've frequently considered doing the same here; but it's between a few remaining contacts (PM stuff) and the (ironic) fact that The Escapist is actually far more moderate than the other places I (used to) frequent that I haven't.
Guess it's the company you keep...(generally, not "you" specifically)