Red vs Blue takes on Trigger Warnings

[Muspelheim]

As usual, Xs and Anti-Xs prove that they are exactly the same.

It's the same getting upset and joining in some sort of vague struggle for its own sake, and the same cheap ego-wank. Last summer was all "War" this and "Fight" that, and it haven't gotten much less pathetic since.

Do what I do. Buy a newspaper and whine at it every morning. It diffuses a lot of excess whine and no one else have to put up with it.

 

[WhiteNachos]

I suppose I meant they aren't "active users", but I have no way of actually knowing that. I imagine if they hate it that much they wouldn't subject themselves to it, but then the Great Internet Culture War of 2015 happened and I don't know what to believe anymore.

Here's the problem: Tumblr is huge. Really huge. It's a large community with a lot of facets and a fair share of overlap, but not necessarily on all points. People like to complain about "Tumblr feminists," but I suspect it's because they're actively looking for them. The site is not overwhelmingly feminist/SJW/PC/whatever, but it gets the rep because people have a fetish for it.

Not that I'm knocking fetishes. Aside from when my girlfriend links me to a Tumblr post, about the only time I actually end up on the site is when doing Google image searches for porn. I mean, I hope you can see what I'm trying to connect here.

Do you remember when that guy did a study on major gaming publications for words like "sexism," "diversity" and feminism? He came back with a .4% total mention rate. Less than half a percent. People are outraged that feminism is taking over gaming, but what they're reacting to is less than half of one percent.

So they looked at all the words in an article, claimed that it's less than half of a percent therefore it's not a problem? Do you not see the issue with this methodology? A lot of articles on websites are just "someone announced a game" and nothing more. That's the whole article. Do you honestly expect feminism to be brought up in the latest sequel announcement or in the review of the latest dark souls game?

Not to mention this tells us nothing about the side the publication takes when the issue gets brought up. If they don't bring up gender issues that often but take the side of the morally outraged feminists every time they do, what does that say about them?

They're not really mad that it's taking over. They're mad the conversation exists at all.

Well usually the conversation is just a whine about why there aren't more women protagonists/E3 presenters, followed by accusations of sexism and misogyny to anyone who makes games with female protagonists, or it's a whine that there are games that pander to male sexuality (followed by more accusations of sexism and misogyny at the people who make those games).

Man it sure is fun to simplify people isn't it.

While I couldn't guess at the overall ratios on Tumblr, I imagine it's actually a similar thing.

There's predominantly porn on Tumblr if that's all you look for. Similarly, if you're looking for Tumblr feminists to rage at....

People with a passing understanding of tumblr know it's got a bit of everything, but out of all the free blogging platforms they seem to attract more hardcore feminists per capita than wordpress or whatever. I don't use tumblr for anything other than porn but I've heard people who follow fan tumblrs say it creeps up from time to time on their dashboard.

 

[WhiteNachos]

So what's wrong with adding trigger warnings for stuff like rape and domestic abuse?

First thing off the top of my head is: you spoil things, or at least ruin the surprise.

Also why does it have to be trigger warning? Wouldn't the current M/R/Ao/Whatever system work well?

 

[kitsunefather]

Personally, I agree with Donut; it's a nice thing to do if you want to, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Anyway, So does anyone believe the people complaining about trigger warnings on behalf of people suffering from PSTD actually suffer from PSTD?

Some of them do, some of them do not, like more or less any complaint against something affecting part of society.

 

[kitsunefather]

Personally, I agree with Donut; it's a nice thing to do if you want to, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

The thing is I have literally never watched anything that contained a trigger warning. Not once. I mean beyond "contains content that some viewers may find offensive", "intended for mature audiences only". I spend most of my time consuming media and I've never seen it. It seems to me the people getting worked up about the concept of trigger warnings are way louder and more thin skinned than the people asking for them. I really don't think trigger warnings will ever become a requirement.

That's not unfair. I've seen them here and there, while doing internet daisy-chaining, but by and large they are fairly easy to ignore when they exist. The issue people are having is, on blog sites (like Tumblr), there are people getting aggressive about the enforcing of them, to a degree that's becoming a bit silly.

That said, there are several discussions going on about including them in academic material and class syllabi. I'll refer you to the AAUP, USNews, and the Guardian. So, there's something to be said for a more public discussion on the topic and its actual need.

 

[lacktheknack]

His/Her statements in the Incest thread.

Hey.

You.

Don't cross threads. It's incredibly impolite and drags shit and drama to places it shouldn't be.

Thanks.

OT: Eh, a trigger warning is essentially the same as a content warning, which we already use. I don't see the issue.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Also, what's with the idea that being on tumblr means you care about social justice, as opposed to pictures of cats or weird porn anyway?

It's just the stigma for the site, I'd imagine.

Kinda like how the chans are all rabid animals, Reddit is full of idiots and thieves, Youtube's comments are nothing but bile, and the Escapist is full of pretentious twats.

It just becomes a "thing" that the internet at large accepts about a particular site/user group.

YEAH! LET'S BURN DOWN TUMBLR!

NO! MY HENTA- I mean cat blogs. Cat blogs. Right.

Yeeeeah.

Ahem.

As for the subject: RvB <3

So what's wrong with adding trigger warnings for stuff like rape and domestic abuse?

Absolutely nothing.

Content warnings have been with us for a long time. They let people have a basic idea as to what awaits them in whatever media they're consuming. All well and good.

The problem I have with "Trigger Warnings" is that the people screaming for them are usually doing so in the name of outrage, rather than for any diagnosed psychological condition. It's seldom 'asked' for and is, instead, 'demanded' regardless of whatever the content creator might have to say on the subject.

For the folks with actual conditions? Yeah, I feel for them. Triggering trauma isn't exactly a fun thing, as I've seen with some former military friends (just recently, what with the 4th and all) so to see people flinging around the term for something that just makes them feel uncomfortable?

Makes me sick.

 

[Redd the Sock]

snip

Actually I work in the field of care for the developmentally disabled. Granted I'm in the fiance department, but I had to learn a lot about triggers and behaviors to keep the job. The hard part is that it's a population wherein people can be triggered by anything and you can't always diagnose what, and they can't always understand why or even that the behavior they have is wrong and harmful (excuses that don't apply to people with PTSD and really don't apply to those whose PSTD is self diagnosed). Since anything from the wrong words to the color you a shirt can set them off, Things are done with the end goal of either trying to stop the triggering, or to provide alternative outlets for it than punching a hole in the wall.

Getting to that point does require a lot of work and effort from both parties, but getting successes also means looking at things that can hinder or undo your work, and more often than not, it's when behaviors have negative impact on the life of the triggered that make people feel the need to succeed at not being triggers or having behaviors. Hence I find trigger warnings do more harm than good in the real world as in letting someone avoid a trigger, it also removes the consequences of being triggered, providing less incentive to learn to cope. Worst case scenario it breeds a mindset of not needing to learn to cope because everyone around them will take extra care not to make them, and the issue just sits there undealt with to set them off again when factors are outside their control and they just expect to not be caught off guard. It isn't healing. It's the psychological equivalent of the joke: it hurts when I do this -> Then don't do that.

I don't mean to be an ogre, but I prefer short term pain that comes with long term gain. I don't limit this to mental health. Overlook an alcoholic's actions and they will keep drinking. Do for the disabled and they won't think they have to learn to do for themselves. Do someone's homework for them and they'll never learn themselves.

 

[cleric of the order]

I'm with grif on this.
In cases of ptsd people can be triggered by more then just fucking topic matter yeah, like sensory stimuli.
Even if that is not the case, it does not solve the problem, merely glosses it over the problem at the inconvenience of others.
AND for the people without ptsd or self diagnosed with it, let me refer you to the encyclopedia dramatia page on offense and remember, offense is taken, not given.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I appreciate your work ethic, but an appeal to your own authority mixed with more moralizing is still not a valid argument to make. In any case, I really doubt you expect more from those you work with than they can reasonably provide. You'll press someone to get back on a horse, but not to do handstands on them. For some people, since triggers for their PTSD do not normally arise, content warnings can be helpful.

The argument, "Well I'm doing you a favor buddy", however you try to contextualize it with your own work, is a shitty argument.

Am I reading that right? It looks like you're trying to say experience in a relevant field is invalid because reasons.

You can call my argument shitty all you want, but between work and personal life I've seen a world of different between those treated like then can do something hard, and those treated like they can't or shouldn't have to. As I said, guess which turns out happier, more confident, and more self sufficient.

 

[cleric of the order]

Malingerers should not taint the reputations of the genuinely ill, anymore than unemployed whiners should taint the reputation of people at work who ask for "NSFW" tags. Neither should be required, but since both are trivially easy, why not just be accommodating instead of a dick?

I never suggested that, or at least that was not given intention
let me refer you to this.

I'm with grif on this.
In cases of ptsd people can be triggered by more then just fucking topic matter yeah, like sensory stimuli.

I do not doubt people with PTSD get triggered, rather from what I understand i is an unconscious-subjective response.
I may have been a bit lax in communication (again for good reason, losing a well structured couple hundred words to my 4th mouse button is infuriating), PTSD can be triggered by anything that resembles or reminds one of the trauma, that can include a sound, that has no reliance or even be cognizant the stimuli (from what I have been led to believe).
What a person with PTSD needs is a good neuroplastic treatment, psychiatric help, etc,etc to lessen the emotional connections, to remove the pain of the event.

In that sense I find it odd to cater to a entirely subjective experience in any general activity of this kind.
If what you have there is explicit as far as I understand simply indicating the given thing is explicit is more than necessary.
I had a much longer diatribe on the subject but it come to this, FOR WHAT PURPOSE.
When someone clicks something explicit, it forms a social contract, you click on it and you understand that what you are getting into is explicit.
On the other hand, triggers can be exceedingly subjective, actually they are completely subjective by nature.
It goes beyond general consensus.
It becomes the specific applied to the general, in what amounts to a waste of man hours, which as far as I understand does not actually fix the actual problem but treats the symptoms.
I'd rather see social programmes and goverment funding for giving these people treatment then this runabout take place.

As for your accommodation comment, I must stress something.
If I needed any accommodation I would prefer to have it be a method that raises me up, fixes my problem the best it can.
And I do specific need accommodations, I'm an aspie.
And that is what I get.
I would not rather however to be treated like an infant, like I have been as well.
That is as far as I have been lead to believe trigger warnings to be.
It does take the persons feelings int question but it's an empty gesture, that person will still have those triggers.
Those triggers aren't dealt with effectively, as I would like to indicate (to further underline the absurdity, there can be so many possible subjective triggers that a person might not even be aware of that. It is literally impossible to deal with every trigger.)
To truly accommodate someone you need to take into account the problem and rationally deal with the problem, helping people isn't very clean and pathological altruism will not solve anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hence I find trigger warnings do more harm than good in the real world as in letting someone avoid a trigger, it also removes the consequences of being triggered, providing less incentive to learn to cope.

Whose decision is that to make, though?

When you say that "letting" someone avoid something they don't like is a bad idea, isn't that getting into a very murky area?

It becomes the specific applied to the general, in what amounts to a waste of man hours, which as far as I understand does not actually fix the actual problem but treats the symptoms.
I'd rather see social programmes and goverment funding for giving these people treatment then this runabout take place.

That's a terrible false dichotomy. The people who are typing "trigger warning: rape" (and wasting oh so many precious man hours doing so, it seems) aren't generally the ones that decide on how government funding is spent.

(to further underline the absurdity, there can be so many possible subjective triggers that a person might not even be aware of that. It is literally impossible to deal with every trigger.)

The idea that people shouldn't bother with trigger warnings because they won't be able to deal with eveyr trigger is rather absurd, yes.

 

[MatParker116]

The idea that people shouldn't bother with trigger warnings because they won't be able to deal with eveyr trigger is rather absurd, yes.

Actually according to an internationally recognised trauma expert it kind of is:

?There would be no point,? he said. ?You cannot get a person to avoid triggers in their day-to-day lives. It would be impossible.? But, given a chance to think it over, Basoglu went much further than that. ?The media should actually ? quite the contrary? Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. ?Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That?s not good. ?Exposure to trauma reminders provides an opportunity to gain control over them. This is the essence of the treatment that we are using to help trauma survivors. It involves encouraging the patient not to avoid reminders of trauma, but in fact to make a point of exposing themselves to reminders of trauma so that they can develop a tolerance. ?I liken it to a vaccination. You get a small dose of the virus so that the body can develop immunity towards it. Psychologically it?s the same phenomenon.?

 

[Thaluikhain]

The idea that people shouldn't bother with trigger warnings because they won't be able to deal with eveyr trigger is rather absurd, yes.

Actually according to an internationally recognised trauma expert it kind of is:

?There would be no point,? he said. ?You cannot get a person to avoid triggers in their day-to-day lives. It would be impossible.? But, given a chance to think it over, Basoglu went much further than that. ?The media should actually ? quite the contrary? Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. ?Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That?s not good. ?Exposure to trauma reminders provides an opportunity to gain control over them. This is the essence of the treatment that we are using to help trauma survivors. It involves encouraging the patient not to avoid reminders of trauma, but in fact to make a point of exposing themselves to reminders of trauma so that they can develop a tolerance. ?I liken it to a vaccination. You get a small dose of the virus so that the body can develop immunity towards it. Psychologically it?s the same phenomenon.?

Sure, the media can encourage people to expose themselves to triggers, but it should remain people's own choice as to whether they want to do it at any given particular time or not.

 

[maninahat]

Third time's a charm. Or is that fourth?

Anyway, So does anyone believe the people complaining about trigger warnings on behalf of people suffering from PSTD actually suffer from PSTD?

Cause I have a suspicion this is another "activists" being offended on behalf of other people and speaking over them. That is what annoys people more than the trigger warnings themselves.

Why would I need to have PTSD to be considerate to people with PTSD?

If the prevailing advice is that trigger warnings are of some use to people with PTSD, then I don't see the issue with people wanting them to be used more. I can even appreciate people getting annoyed about it when they aren't used. Even if we assume people demand trigger warnings for wholly arrogant or self-centred reasons, the result is still a good thing - more trigger warnings are used, for the benefit of people with PTSD.

It's like complaining about people for giving to charity for the wrong reasons. even if some guy gives money to charity just to look good, the net effect is still that the charity gets the money it needs.

 

[wulf3n]

If the prevailing advice is that trigger warnings are of some use to people with PTSD, then I don't see the issue with people wanting them to be used more. I can even appreciate people getting annoyed about it when they aren't used.

I believe some people just don't like others raising an issue on their behalf, especially when method of delivery is somewhat zealous.

OT: There's nothing inherently wrong with trigger warnings if people choose to include them of their own free will. It's pretty innocuous, though maybe that's just an Australian thing, as TV used to (i don't know if it still does) have essentially a trigger warning (though more of a content advisory displayed before the show started) for any show rated higher than PG.

The only problem I have is what a trigger warning, as opposed to just a plain old content advisory says about the attitudes of society. Content Advisory places the responsibility on the individual for their actions, where as a trigger warning essentially puts the responsibility on the content creator. I prefer content advisory.

 

[Frankster]

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.

I'm sorry but this is false. Maybe it's just different in uk and I've been HORRIBLE at my work, but my own experiences working at a mental health clinic and helping therapists prepare for their patients and choosing the appropriate therapy have been contradictory to your statement.

First of all for that horse example, you WOULD get the rider to go back on the horse, albeit in steps (first seeing the horse, then touching the horse, then putting your foot in the spur, etc), this is called systematic desensitization therapy, and is the primary one used for a lot of phobias and mental blocs. It would be unsuitable for a soldier with PTSD but your fireworks example would actually be a good exercise for that vet once he had been sufficiently prepared for it.

We have NEVER used trigger warnings or any of that during all my time at the clinic. Unless this came into fashion after I left then I doubt this has changed. And we have had some hardcore cases I'll tell you that so it certainly wasn't because the client wasn't traumatized enough. I am unconvinced the addition of trigger warnings as a therapy tool would really be effective either, because you're basically priming the participant, but for what result? What is the intention in priming the patient when the goal of the therapy would be for the patient to be able to function with their trauma in unscripted and unprimed situations?

It's worth pointing out that psychological therapies are backed by research but I've yet to see a research paper on trigger warnings in therapy (though granted I haven't been as dilligent in reading psych papers as I once was), it's only ever been championed by well meaning (I hope) media sources and social sites as far as I know and seeing as the last time the public decided to champion unproven theories, we got Freudianism, colour me skeptical.

 

[BarkBarker]

Bringing the word triggered to something so petty as upsetting you is a hell of a disrespect to the people who have suffered from traumatic experiences and mentally break in one way or the other when they are reminded of it. However, at a certain point it has to be less of the content creator warning people and more you going out to deal with your problem. If you have PTSD, my condolences. If you need some time to recover and don't want to be around things that set you off, that's cool. If something very common can set you off, I suggest you stay away from a large part of media and get help ASAP, its like trying to cook for people with certain allergies if you'll pardon the comparison: some people can do anything but say nuts, some people are allergic to an ingredient found in 85% of what we eat and it gets to a point of frustration. The upside is trauma can be helped.

 

[MatParker116]

If the prevailing advice is that trigger warnings are of some use to people with PTSD, then I don't see the issue with people wanting them to be used more. I can even appreciate people getting annoyed about it when they aren't used. Even if we assume people demand trigger warnings for wholly arrogant or self-centred reasons, the result is still a good thing - more trigger warnings are used, for the benefit of people with PTSD.

According to a former harvard psychology professor it's actually the opposite:

Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder. According to a rigorous analysis by the Institute of Medicine, exposure therapy is the most efficacious treatment for PTSD, especially in civilians who have suffered trauma such as sexual assault. For example, prolonged exposure therapy, the cognitive behavioral treatment pioneered by clinical psychologists Edna B. Foa and Barbara O. Rothbaum, entails having clients close their eyes and recount their trauma in the first-person present tense. After repeated imaginal relivings, most clients experience significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, as traumatic memories lose their capacity to cause emotional distress. Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life. By practicing confronting these triggers, clients learn that fear subsides, enabling them to reclaim their lives and conquer PTSD.