Excepting, of course, that trigger warnings don't prevent anyone from looking at anything. They aren't censorship. They merely inform people of the content following them, so that people can decide for themselves if they want to look at it or not.
Excepting, of course, that trigger warnings don't prevent anyone from looking at anything. They aren't censorship. They merely inform people of the content following them, so that people can decide for themselves if they want to look at it or not.
We already have that for the majority of media: disclaimers and content ratings, the latter which are required by law. If gunshots trigger you, maybe watching "Saving Private Ryan" is probably a bad idea.
Mildly amusing.
Though I agree some trigger warnings are overreaching, they do serve a purpose.
As others have said, there are warning labels for tv shows and music, so it doesn't bother me at all that people try to give you a "heads up" for their content.
It should be limited to serious trauma, though. Death, rape, explicit language, etc.
IMHO, if you have such a psychological hair trigger that it can be set off by anything that wouldn't already be included in a rating system, you should be exorcising caution whenever you interact with the outside world in any capacity if you want to avoid setting it off.
The big problem I see with trigger warnings is that they form a slippery slope that goes on forever; you're never going to be able to document and define every individual trigger, because the human mind does not work in absolutes; ultimately, psychological frailty cannot be catered to, because it is ever changing by virtue of occupying a space that is entirely mental.
Creating a satisfactory trigger warning system for everyone would be almost redundant; you would have to reveal all the content of a given work of media up front, before it even started.
No one can be conscientious of the psychology of a stranger, and it's unreasonable and honestly kind of unfair to expect them to. The media you consume as an adult is your responsibility, and you should understand that if you have a history of PTSD, when you expose yourself to media that is marked for extreme content that you are taking a risk.
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.
That's kind of silly. And that's from Harvard, huh? Hah.
The idea that a trigger warning can only be used to avoid discomfort is laughable. And from the quoted text, the article seems to imply trigger warnings and therapy are mutually exclusive--also laughable. Trigger warnings could be a good way to mentally prepare yourself for confronting your... trigger. Kind of like a jump scare, you know? If you're warned before a jump scare, it is significantly less scary.
I don't see what the deal with all the push back is. Trigger warnings, for me, have just been a silly meme up to this point, but honestly, what's the harm? We already warn people about possible seizures and the content of games--how would trigger warnings be any different? You think you'll be playing a game and it'll pause for a minute before every explosion while the "PC Police" talk to you about triggers? No--it'll be a little, rectangular box on the case, and maybe displayed for a few seconds during all the intro logos you skip.
I don't see what the deal with all the push back is. Trigger warnings, for me, have just been a silly meme up to this point, but honestly, what's the harm? We already warn people about possible seizures and the content of games--how would trigger warnings be any different? You think you'll be playing a game and it'll pause for a minute before every explosion while the "PC Police" talk to you about triggers? No--it'll be a little, rectangular box on the case, and maybe displayed for a few seconds during all the intro logos you skip.
Just my personal observation, but I believe the controversy doesn't really stem from their existence but rather a certain type of people who insist that ALL things must have trigger warnings, from movies to college classes to blog posts and so on and so forth. Of course, this led to a long back-and-forth in which a lot of people got upset, the extremists of both sides got pushed to the front of the argument, and in the end, what once was a simple attempt to be considerate now has a really weird stigma attached to it.
Tumblr's getting tired of it too, or at least the corners I see. Someone posted pictures of American content ratings systems when asked for "ideas for more comprehensive trigger warnings." The person who asked the question had no idea any kind of content ratings were even a thing, let alone how to use them. I understand trigger warnings are needed for people with PTSD, but so many younger kids are whining when something mildly upsets, offends, or angers them, that "trigger warning", when used on tumblr, has become shorthand for "my parents never taught me how to emotionally regulate, and I may, in fact, be too young to use the internet responsibly." Hell, on a site I go to, an article got posted up that was called something like, "Why asking me about my cultural oppression is oppressing me." Can ya tell it was written by a teenager? Bet ya can! That's why another article got posted up a day later called, The Difference Between Annoyance And Oppression. You know... because there is one. Full disclosure: Don't like certain ant colonies. Never did. But I'm not liking two people who presume to speak on my Frequency much either. They seem to have no liking for the kyriarchal bargain, think the Third Wave is an era of cinema they're just too sophisticated for, and probably haven't got any idea of who Eve Ensler even is. (If you don't, that's alright. You guys aren't making a video series on feminism in modern media.) In the past few weeks, they've begun demanding that certain media they enjoy should cater directly and exclusively to their specific tastes... just like the tumblr kids... and just like those gooberguts. Neither group sees the irony in that they share some of the same reasons that "Mad Max is not a feminist movie..."
Yeah I find trigger warnings just meh. They are like content warnings but people do tend to take them too far. But what makes me mad is that the people who make the bigger fuss about trigger warnings and those that say everything has to have trigger warnings are making a mockery out of those with actual mental health issues or those who actually suffer from triggers. It's almost as bad as the people who sit and self diagnose themselves with mental health issues without actually knowing what those issues are, and are just doing it because it's the popular thing with the kids nowadays.
I don't see what the deal with all the push back is. Trigger warnings, for me, have just been a silly meme up to this point, but honestly, what's the harm? We already warn people about possible seizures and the content of games--how would trigger warnings be any different? You think you'll be playing a game and it'll pause for a minute before every explosion while the "PC Police" talk to you about triggers? No--it'll be a little, rectangular box on the case, and maybe displayed for a few seconds during all the intro logos you skip.
Just my personal observation, but I believe the controversy doesn't really stem from their existence but rather a certain type of people who insist that ALL things must have trigger warnings, from movies to college classes to blog posts and so on and so forth. Of course, this led to a long back-and-forth in which a lot of people got upset, the extremists of both sides got pushed to the front of the argument, and in the end, what once was a simple attempt to be considerate now has a really weird stigma attached to it.
That's because the internet just loves to over-complicate things. If a topic continues for more than three months, you can rest assured that it's going to be involved in politics somehow.
Also, people seem to be missing that the video was taking the piss out of both sides of the argument. Doc was going overboard with the Trigger warnings while Griff was overreacting towards them and getting pissed for no real reason.
I only ever see Trigger Warnings (as opposed to content warnings on media, allergen information on food packets, etc) in the parts of the internet that could be best described as misguidedly zealous enclaves of liberal sentiment. I strongly suspect they're utilised mostly as a kind of self-congratulatory in-group signifier that lets people be smug about how much more considerate and aware they are than us coarse Patriarchy-brainwashed normies.
Before this goes any farther we have to separate out the people who associate trigger warnings with things like really jacked up stuff you need to be warned about and people who associate trigger warnings with "tumblr" things.
Because generally when I see trigger warnings I see them clarifying things that somebody could justifiability get angry about seeing if they weren't expecting it. Somebody might not be in favor of (insert internet thing you wouldn't want your parents to know about here) and they may be right or wrong for not liking that but I think its justifiable to expect a warning with how dank and absolutely insane the internet can be.
However I can accept that has been associated with PTSD and my definition here could easily just be called "content warning" and leave behind a lot of politics still keeping people from viewing whatever thing offends them. In fact I think that's better because most sites have some expected level of "content warning" associated with them already and that should really only be used when things are going significantly beyond that.
Also I want to ask which definition of this do you most often see this used in, and by that I mean how much of this problem could be solved simply by telling people to use "content warning" instead of "trigger warning" on their stuff?
However I can accept that has been associated with PTSD and my definition here could easily just be called "content warning" and leave behind a lot of politics still keeping people from viewing whatever thing offends them. In fact I think that's better because most sites have some expected level of "content warning" associated with them already and that should really only be used when things are going significantly beyond that.
I don't really like trigger warnings for what they represent, and how pervasive they are in our day to day discussions. This is, I think, the result of many people using them for tweets and for small blogs and articles talking about the day to day discrimination or hardship that people might go through, as if it is all PTSD inducing and debilitating. I think the first time it really struck me was during the whole gamergate debate, early on where people were tweeting in the middle of emotionally heaving discussions "Great, I'm triggered now, Thanks assholes" and things to that effect. I think we could all do better when looking for ways to encourage discussion, but I am firmly against the idea of adding official rules and regulations in public and private institutions, that would allow individuals to stifle learning for others.
That is just to say, I don't think the idea of trigger warnings are bad, but just that I don't think students should be able to get teachers fired over them (not that this is whats happening but just that kind of idea). It would be like having review sites, have manditory rules against spoilers, that could get reviewers fired etc. It's better as a courtesy then some kind of concrete rule.
Of course that's just my opinion, but I'll stand by it.
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.
I believe mental healthcare should not be optional. That being said, having no trigger warnings does not remove peoples choice, unless they are in Clockwork Orange situation being forced to watch stuff. As far as i know they can still turn off their computers/tvs/radios.
thaluikhain said:
Because, yes, trigger warnings are intended to avoid reminders of their trauma (to avoided being triggered, not discomfort, mind), and qualified therapists exposing people to triggering things under a developed hierarchy, getting rid of the first hardly equates to the second. That's like saying I get to throw spiders at random people without warning because people with Phds might expose arachnophobes to spiders are part of their therapy.
Not equivalent sitaution. Equivalent situation would be if say you were making a stage show and you were to use spiders as part of your performance and Arachnophobes can choose to come to your show or not.
Thank you for sharing your insights.
From what what you described, you're acutely aware of your triggers and know the risks, and I completely respect that.
Some I worked with...were not so aware. However they also weren't living without assistance and I sincerely doubt they were being turned loose upon the amorphous and dynamic media beast that is the Internet.
I do have some direct, albeit limited experience here.
During my later years in high school, I entered a volunteer a program aimed at assisting others with disabilities and mental illness/trauma (for therapy and recreation). I learned a number of things, but first and most relevant to this subject, is that those with real disabilities (especially mental trauma, and who are aware of it) DON'T WEAR THEIR PROBLEMS LIKE A BADGE.
Because they're still just people trying to live normally.
(There's a fine line between empathy and condescension, and one I learned through hardship and necessity.)
The second thing, is that PTSD and other mental trauma varies heavily from person to person. One thing I noticed among the "socially functional" (those that lived without assistance) is that they are aware of their condition and their limitations, and thus, they took responsibility for themselves.
So the way I see it, treating them like people means recognizing that responsibility just as much if not more than their condition. I don't mean to say that we should pretend their issues don't exist (quite the opposite; I'm all for assistance and therapy, as I am for any problem), but I draw a line between those that expose themselves to triggers/risks through planned therapy, and those that just want to extort personal convenience from the public at large (and social leverage from this brave new "outrage culture").
IMO, Trigger Warnings sound like a good idea (akin to epilepsy warnings) but only on paper because (again, just my limited experience) triggers and reactions vary WILDLY. Some clients exhibited general anxiety when exposed and were pretty to avoid triggering, while others went off seemingly at random.
I recall one poor kid (IIRC a child abuse victim) literally soil themselves and run screaming in adrenaline-furor at the sight of a Popsicle. Yes, a damn orange Popsicle. It sounds kind of morbidly funny out of context, but it was an eye-opening and frankly, frightening experience for me.
Outside of my Peer Partners experience (the program), I know people in real life with PTSD.
One of my friends has PTSD due to an incident of gang related violence that occurred in his home country (he moved to the US partially for treatment; I met him about 2 years after the incident), where he was shot in the stomach at point blank with a handgun, and just prior, watched one of his friends suffer the same fate and die.
That wasn't related to me just by him, but his family when I called his ICE number.
In the 8 or so years I've known him, I've witnessed some of his episodes first hand (some taking the better part of three hours) involving, phantom pains, complete emotional breakdown, and reflexive behavior like curling up in the fetal position. His most common trigger was the sound of an ambulance siren, and I say "was" (tentatively) because he worked for years in therapy to lessen that (kinda important since he lives and works in an area with three hospitals within 5 blocks of him).
My point in in all this: He took responsibility for himself, and emerged better for it. I understand that others may not achieve the same results, but the key point is that without taking that responsibility (and foisting it upon others) he would never have overcome in the first place.
Yet, if I were to go by the "Trigger(warning)-Happy" crowd, the internet should post things like "TRIGGER WARNING: AMBULANCE" or "TRIGGER WARNING: SIREN" on anything with something even just RESEMBLING an ambulance siren.
So lets stop and think about that. Yes, it sounds reasonable on the surface but only because I KNOW HIM AND HIS SPECIFIC CONDITION; the general public DOES NOT and CANNOT.
If I extrapolate his scenario to thousands of others and their widely, various triggers (even excluding those that are just pretending to have PTSD; which boils my blood something fierce) I realize the task is simply infeasible; it'd require nothing short of public clairvoyance to achieve.
As cold as it sounds to others, I think it's far better for someone with real triggers to get help, or at least realize the risks involved in dealing with a seemingly "random" public rather than demand warnings for every single thing.
(Yeah, some PTSD is loosely categorical, like war vets' combat trauma, but the bulk of it really isn't.)
And in that, I thank you for showing responsibility and foresight.
Thanks for sharing in return Atmos. I've seen some of my peers with far more severe manifestations of PTSD than what I deal with and over the years the impact has lessened on me to a degree. I like that you talk about personal responsibility of those who know what triggers them since that is precisely how I feel about it. I still go and see things that I know will trigger me because I am able to enjoy those things despite the anxiety attacks. I'm responsible for managing my issues, not society at large. For those who have a wide variety of triggers, some of which they don't even know, trigger warnings become useless, as you say. Thanks again for taking the time to write all of that. Cheers!
Right, and you as a decent person mention in your advertising that "Arachnophobes beware" or something to that effect, and nobody is hurt, and nobody is inconvenienced.
Not necessarily, unless my advertisement is based on tongue in cheek jokes about arachnophobes. It is likely that the advertisement may feature spiders if they are a big part of the act, but thats about it.
I've never actually heard that kind of language outside of people mocking the supposed excesses of "Tumblrites". I wonder how common those people being held up as paragons of a larger group really are, and how much they make for a convenient straw man for the intellectually lazy.
I don't really understand what you're saying or even whether you agree or disagree with me.
Are you saying that there aren't sizeable and relatively mainstream communities out there (both IRL and online) whose bread and butter of discourse includes intentionally baffling and opaque language appropriated and bastardised from the fields of sociology and psychology? Because there's ample evidence to back that up. Are you saying it's a strawman to point out that the concept of triggers has been taken to a ridiculous usage of in-vogue moral posturing? Again, examples plop unbidden from social media, blogs, communities, conferences and college campus discussions.
I'm not saying all unironic uses of trigger warnings are cause to scoff... but it's a fairly good bet.
I guess that's fair enough. A nice gesture, but ultimately no one is obligated to do it. More so than the "golden rule" I find it's better to understand no one is obligated to treat you in the way you would like to be treated.
Your reply seems to be out of step with your previous discussion, and my reply to it. Are you saying that you'd feel so offended or burdened by adding a content warning for arachnophobes, that you wouldn't do it?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
