Trigger Warnings

[Guest Revurex]

*I’m talking about trigger warnings in general, not in regards to this forum.*

 

 

I’ve yet to develop my stance on trigger warnings. My initial reaction to them was negative. However, anytime I have a knee-jerk reaction to something I stop myself and question why I’m thinking that way. Usually, it’s due to ignorance or not viewing things from another perspective.

 

I’d like to see a rational discussion on trigger warnings.  

 

I’m currently stuck on the fact that there’s no research supporting the use of trigger warnings. So far everything I’ve come across is anecdotal. Whereas It’s well supported that avoidance can be detrimental to an individual's mental health. Especially with PTSD.

 

Are trigger warnings actually helping people in the long run?

 

Am I looking at it wrong? Is it about having the ability to choose when you're exposed rather than completely avoiding the trigger?

 

Is there a line? Does it ever become the responsibility of the person being triggered rather than the speaker? 

 

Do I need to provide a trigger warning when talking about a cat or swimming? I assume most people don’t but what if someone had a traumatic drowning experience? To be inclusive we would have to provide trigger warnings for everything. That’s not realistic but also troublesome. 

 

We're creating a hierarchy of traumatic experiences resulting in some feeling like their traumatic experience is less significant. Is this not a valid concern?

 

I’m not against trigger warnings nor do I lack empathy for people that have experienced trauma. However, I don’t currently possess enough favorable info to be comfortable supporting/using them.

 

My view on trigger warnings is also clouded by the fact that I naturally deal with trauma through humor. Rather than avoid it I make jokes about it. Perhaps that is unhealthy, I've yet to look into it.

 

Why do you support trigger warnings? Why don’t you support them?

 

 

I’d enjoy being more informed on this subject and seeing different perspectives.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Revurex

[Guest chubby_marshmallow]

I'm no expert on trauma, but I would like to give and be given the choice to avoid something that I just don't have the spoons to deal with that day. Trigger warnings are helpful in giving people a choice on what they wish to see and not see at that particular time, so for me, it's less about avoiding something forever, and more about choosing when to face the problem in my own time and in my own way. That's how I view them, anyway. 

 

Trigger warnings for regular offline conversation, on the other hand, is trickier. I guess it depends on the situation. 

[I_AM_THE_SENATE]

This is an interesting post, I really like it, guess I'll weigh in my own two cents.

 

First I'd like to commend you on your response to your own knee jerk reaction an taking the time to think about something. What's the expression? Intelligence is entertaining an idea without agreeing with it or something like that? 

 

Secondly, I also support rational discussion on anything and everything. As a topic, this one often gets bogged down in childish insults, and unproductive mentality and general nonsense from both sides of the political spectrum (and whilst I think it comes more from one side that doesn't make it acceptable when the other side does it) so it's great to see the advocacy of rational discussion. 

 

On to the topic at hand though,

You are indeed correct as far as I'm aware that any research in this area is largely lacking in terms of the success of trigger warnings. However, you are also correct in that there is a large amount of evidence to suggest that avoidance is bad for mental health when it comes to trauma and that dealing with such things are what is successful. Indeed, exposure therapy (apologies if I have misquoted the term here) has much success in helping people deal with PTSD, anxiety, phobias and OCD. Indeed, It helped me deal with my own obsessive compulsive tendencies in the more distant past and has helped those I know deal with their trauma. So, in answer to one of the questions you asked; No I do not believe trigger warnings help people, quite the opposite. 

 

You ask if it is about having the ability to choose what one is exposed to. I only agree with this concept to the following extent: it is only your choice what you are exposed to provided you are not compelling what others can say in order to (for lack of a better term) 'protect' yourself. If someone wants to avoid their trigger then whilst I think that is a bad decision I in no way think I have any right to force them address their trigger. However, I also feel that the person in question has no right to compel my right to say what I think or talk about the trigger as they do not have to read my writing or listen to my speech. I think that a persons right to speech trumps any right to 'feel' comfortable. After all, one must sometimes risk being uncomfortable in order to ascertain that which is correct and right. 

 

You ask if there is a line. I think I have already outlines this above. The line is compelled speech, something that I personally already feel is happening in many areas of society. I also believe it to be problematic and dangerous. If it goes too far then by definition it will be the end of free speech and thus the ability to find the truth discuss ideas (two things that are necessary for the progress of humanity). I think the responsibility is ALWAYS on the person who claims to be triggered rather than the speaker. I won't talk about someones triggers if asked because that's just the pleasant thing to do for someone, being a decent person and such. However, I respect someones right to be an all round jerk and talk about things I've asked them not too. There are plenty of things that make me uncomfortable but if I need to be uncomfortable sometimes in order to ensure we can openly discuss ideas and protect society at large in that manner then so be it. If you don't like what someone is saying, stop listening. It's that simple. One does not have to compel the speech of others in order to be happy. 

 

You are indeed correct when you say that trigger warnings are impractical. I think this is a good way to frame, on a macro level, the issues surrounding trigger warnings. Anywho, I hope you enjoyed my ramblings and I hope that people find them helpful, 

 

Ya boi

 

 

 

The Senate.

[baby_k]

Every person has responsibility over themselves, so in that sense I would not say that "we help people by forcing content on them". It is not really our call what people want to see or read ( or otherwise I'm all in for making people read e.g. Stephen Hawkins or Orwell 8P ) even if it would be good for them. They themselves need to decide that they want to get better, and that they will do even the unpleasant things that are part of the process.

 

Term "trigger warning" is really vague and people seem to use it in many different ways. I see it just as "mature content" which is nice warning to have if one happens to be in unstable state already -> can avoid for the time being and read when mentally in better shape. Like person who just experienced something nasty, like loosing their child, can avoid topics that could lead to mental break down at work for example. There are many times in everyones lives when we just don't have the energy and means to deal with some stuff.

 

Therefore adding trigger warning could be seen as considerate, polite thing that can help people to choose what they see and when, it also gives prewarning of what next. Like I like to know what kind of movie I'm seeing: not interested in getting nightmares from horror movies even some people love that genre. Or how safe search is nice to have at work but also otherwise: some stuff just can't be unseen. BUT obviously 'trigger warning' is not similar somewhat straight forward system like movie/game ratings are but something poorly defined. Maybe it is still step to the right direction with giving us better control on what sort of material we encounter.

 

Problematic it becomes if people start demanding it: where is the line of what is triggering? There is always those people who are offended by the mere excistance of something and if we need to start being over considerate because of them.... well, no thanks.

 

If there is large proper studies that say clearly "trigger warnings are bad for mental health" or something, okay, I change my opinion that it is nice to have them. However, I have yet to meet studies claiming that. Being supriced by nasty content does not seem like helpful imo but I'm not psycology expert.

[MarshmallowPeep]

The way I see it is that trigger warnings are there to give people a heads up and a chance to choose if they wish to expose themselves to something. Even if they haven't experienced trauma, it's a sign that what they may see or read will cause discomfort and/or other negative emotions.

They don't really help in the long run, that's why things such as therapy and other forms of healing exist, but being directly exposed to the trigger isn't going to help either.

 

Picture in your head a person who has gone through a very traumatic experience that they have yet to heal from (with the help of a professional and therapy). Now make them read or watch something about a similar experience that will provide enough information and detail to make them vividly remember said experience. The emotions that would flood through a person would probably be like reliving that moment.

Exposure therapy is something to be done slowly and carefully, and not by yourself by putting yourself through your triggers in a way that may damage you further.

 

Very good topic idea by the way! It's amazing to see people wanting to learn about the perspective of others

[Guest Revurex]

This is an interesting post, I really like it, guess I'll weigh in my own two cents.

 

First I'd like to commend you on your response to your own knee jerk reaction an taking the time to think about something. What's the expression? Intelligence is entertaining an idea without agreeing with it or something like that? 

 

Secondly, I also support rational discussion on anything and everything. As a topic, this one often gets bogged down in childish insults, and unproductive mentality and general nonsense from both sides of the political spectrum (and whilst I think it comes more from one side that doesn't make it acceptable when the other side does it) so it's great to see the advocacy of rational discussion. 

 

On to the topic at hand though,

You are indeed correct as far as I'm aware that any research in this area is largely lacking in terms of the success of trigger warnings. However, you are also correct in that there is a large amount of evidence to suggest that avoidance is bad for mental health when it comes to trauma and that dealing with such things are what is successful. Indeed, exposure therapy (apologies if I have misquoted the term here) has much success in helping people deal with PTSD, anxiety, phobias and OCD. Indeed, It helped me deal with my own obsessive compulsive tendencies in the more distant past and has helped those I know deal with their trauma. So, in answer to one of the questions you asked; No I do not believe trigger warnings help people, quite the opposite. 

 

You ask if it is about having the ability to choose what one is exposed to. I only agree with this concept to the following extent: it is only your choice what you are exposed to provided you are not compelling what others can say in order to (for lack of a better term) 'protect' yourself. If someone wants to avoid their trigger then whilst I think that is a bad decision I in no way think I have any right to force them address their trigger. However, I also feel that the person in question has no right to compel my right to say what I think or talk about the trigger as they do not have to read my writing or listen to my speech. I think that a persons right to speech trumps any right to 'feel' comfortable. After all, one must sometimes risk being uncomfortable in order to ascertain that which is correct and right. 

 

You ask if there is a line. I think I have already outlines this above. The line is compelled speech, something that I personally already feel is happening in many areas of society. I also believe it to be problematic and dangerous. If it goes too far then by definition it will be the end of free speech and thus the ability to find the truth discuss ideas (two things that are necessary for the progress of humanity). I think the responsibility is ALWAYS on the person who claims to be triggered rather than the speaker. I won't talk about someones triggers if asked because that's just the pleasant thing to do for someone, being a decent person and such. However, I respect someones right to be an all round jerk and talk about things I've asked them not too. There are plenty of things that make me uncomfortable but if I need to be uncomfortable sometimes in order to ensure we can openly discuss ideas and protect society at large in that manner then so be it. If you don't like what someone is saying, stop listening. It's that simple. One does not have to compel the speech of others in order to be happy. 

 

You are indeed correct when you say that trigger warnings are impractical. I think this is a good way to frame, on a macro level, the issues surrounding trigger warnings. Anywho, I hope you enjoyed my ramblings and I hope that people find them helpful, 

 

Ya boi

 

 

 

The Senate.

 

 

Thank you for the thorough reply. I’m in agreement with everything you’ve mentioned. I was trying to avoid this side of the discussion as it tends to get political but you touched on what I consider to be the most critical aspect of all this. Which unfortunately has nothing to do with mental health. Freedom of speech. I’m deeply concerned with what will happen when the use of trigger warnings grows beyond academic institutions and becomes more mainstream. On several occasions, trigger warnings have been used to shut down opposing views on college campuses. It’s also being used to determine what is and isn’t hate speech. I find this extremely troubling.

[I_AM_THE_SENATE]

 

Thank you for the thorough reply. I’m in agreement with everything you’ve mentioned. I was trying to avoid this side of the discussion as it tends to get political but you touched on what I consider to be the most critical aspect of all this. Which unfortunately has nothing to do with mental health. Freedom of speech. I’m deeply concerned with what will happen when the use of trigger warnings grows beyond academic institutions and becomes more mainstream. On several occasions, trigger warnings have been used to shut down opposing views on college campuses. It’s also being used to determine what is and isn’t hate speech. I find this extremely troubling.

 

You're welcome my dude, glad I could be of some help. I hope others find what I've said helpful also.

 

You mentioned that the most important aspect of this issue was freedom of speech and that this issue tends to get political. I think this has a lot to do with those who use trigger warnings to shut down free speech not actually being in 'need' (for lack of a better term) of them but rather speaking and acting in favour of them because they wish to push a political agenda and feel virtuous about 'doing something' for those that they believe need it. In my experience, those who suffer genuine trauma do not wish to compel anyones speech. 

 

This is certainly an interesting topic and I'm glad I could contribute. 

 

Ya boi,

 

 

The Senate.

[Guest Revurex]

You're welcome my dude, glad I could be of some help. I hope others find what I've said helpful also.

 

You mentioned that the most important aspect of this issue was freedom of speech and that this issue tends to get political. I think this has a lot to do with those who use trigger warnings to shut down free speech not actually being in 'need' (for lack of a better term) of them but rather speaking and acting in favour of them because they wish to push a political agenda and feel virtuous about 'doing something' for those that they believe need it. In my experience, those who suffer genuine trauma do not wish to compel anyones speech. 

 

This is certainly an interesting topic and I'm glad I could contribute. 

 

Ya boi,

 

 

The Senate.

 

Yes, I was specifically referring to those trying to push a political agenda not people suffering from genuine trauma. 

[LittleCelticLass]

My own opinion, is that trigger warnings have become a farce. Too often people just feel uncomfortable about certain subjects, so they claim to be "triggered", in order to shut down someone else's right to discourse.

For example, I am uncomfortable discussing certain kinks. Does that mean that I am triggered by them? No. It means as an adult, I have to take responsibility for my self and remove myself from the topic. It's not the responsibility of others to sensor themselves for my benefit. I can ask to have the subject changed, but I shouldn't demand it.

I have suffered multiple traumas. There are subjects which upset me because of this. Do I get upset and blame the media, authors, film makers, conversants etc. if I stumble across this type of content? No. I remove myself. That little red x, the power button, channel change button, or my own two feet can take me out of a situation. I don't need a trigger warning. I'm an adult, and I realize that life has unpleasant things in it. Blaming others for my reactions is not fair, and is disrespectful.

 

Sorry, I may have rambled.

Edited August 22, 2018 by LittleCelticLass

[Guest ~*~Sachita~*~]

I see it just as "mature content" which is nice warning to have if one happens to be in unstable state already -> can avoid for the time being and read when mentally in better shape.

I second this. To me, "Trigger warning" means, "Warning, shit is about to get graphic".

 

However, I've never experienced trauma, so I can't speak to the effectiveness of such warnings.

[Guest Revurex]

I second this. To me, "Trigger warning" means, "Warning, shit is about to get graphic".

 

However, I've never experienced trauma, so I can't speak to the effectiveness of such warnings.

 

 

Every person has responsibility over themselves, so in that sense I would not say that "we help people by forcing content on them". It is not really our call what people want to see or read ( or otherwise I'm all in for making people read e.g. Stephen Hawkins or Orwell 8P ) even if it would be good for them. They themselves need to decide that they want to get better, and that they will do even the unpleasant things that are part of the process.

 

Term "trigger warning" is really vague and people seem to use it in many different ways. I see it just as "mature content" which is nice warning to have if one happens to be in unstable state already -> can avoid for the time being and read when mentally in better shape. Like person who just experienced something nasty, like loosing their child, can avoid topics that could lead to mental break down at work for example. There are many times in everyones lives when we just don't have the energy and means to deal with some stuff.

 

Therefore adding trigger warning could be seen as considerate, polite thing that can help people to choose what they see and when, it also gives prewarning of what next. Like I like to know what kind of movie I'm seeing: not interested in getting nightmares from horror movies even some people love that genre. Or how safe search is nice to have at work but also otherwise: some stuff just can't be unseen. BUT obviously 'trigger warning' is not similar somewhat straight forward system like movie/game ratings are but something poorly defined. Maybe it is still step to the right direction with giving us better control on what sort of material we encounter.

 

Problematic it becomes if people start demanding it: where is the line of what is triggering? There is always those people who are offended by the mere excistance of something and if we need to start being over considerate because of them.... well, no thanks.

 

If there is large proper studies that say clearly "trigger warnings are bad for mental health" or something, okay, I change my opinion that it is nice to have them. However, I have yet to meet studies claiming that. Being supriced by nasty content does not seem like helpful imo but I'm not psycology expert.

 

I hadn't considered how subjective the term is. When I view it like a movie/game rating system it makes more sense but like you said, it's poorly defined. I understand that it's polite/considerate and for the most part I avoid discussing triggering topics when I don't know my crowd. And I figured common sense was enough to navigate that but I've recently discovered it's not. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Revurex

[Guest CollateralBeauty]

My own opinion, is that trigger warnings have become a farce. Too often people just feel uncomfortable about certain subjects, so they claim to be "triggered", in order to shut down someone else's right to discourse.

For example, I am uncomfortable discussing certain kinks. Does that mean that I am triggered by them? No. It means as an adult, I have to take responsibility for my self and remove myself from the topic. It's not the responsibility of others to sensor themselves for my benefit. I can ask to have the subject changed, but I shouldn't demand it.

 

I basically agree with Lass. If you're uncomfortable with a conversation or a situation, be smart enough to remove yourself from it if you can't handle it. But I'm also a firm believer that we need to face our issues eventually. If we were to never acknowledge our issues, how could we ever grow? Growth needs change, and nothing is going to change if you just choose to ignore whatever issues are or have happened. Accept that they have happened and figure out where to go from there. Do I have my own triggers? Yes. But I simply acknowledge that yes, it may make me feel a certain way, and move on.

[Guest Revurex]

My own opinion, is that trigger warnings have become a farce. Too often people just feel uncomfortable about certain subjects, so they claim to be "triggered", in order to shut down someone else's right to discourse.

For example, I am uncomfortable discussing certain kinks. Does that mean that I am triggered by them? No. It means as an adult, I have to take responsibility for my self and remove myself from the topic. It's not the responsibility of others to sensor themselves for my benefit. I can ask to have the subject changed, but I shouldn't demand it.

I have suffered multiple traumas. There are subjects which upset me because of this. Do I get upset and blame the media, authors, film makers, conversants etc. if I stumble across this type of content? No. I remove myself. That little red x, the power button, channel change button, or my own two feet can take me out of a situation. I don't need a trigger warning. I'm an adult, and I realize that life has unpleasant things in it. Blaming others for my reactions is not fair, and is disrespectful.

 

Sorry, I may have rambled.

[Little Illy]

First I'd like to commend you on your response to your own knee jerk reaction an taking the time to think about something. What's the expression? Intelligence is entertaining an idea without agreeing with it or something like that? 

 

"It is a mark of intelligence when a person can entertain an idea without agreeing on it."

 

I second this. To me, "Trigger warning" means, "Warning, shit is about to get graphic".

 

However, I've never experienced trauma, so I can't speak to the effectiveness of such warnings.

 

As of right now, the Trauma portion of the use of TWs has actually been null and void - I'll explain below.

 

...if I stumble across this type of content? No. I remove myself. That little red x, the power button, channel change button, or my own two feet can take me out of a situation. I don't need a trigger warning. I'm an adult, and I realize that life has unpleasant things in it. Blaming others for my reactions is not fair, and is disrespectful.

 

Lass I agree with you most of all.

 

 

Basically what I know about Trigger Warnings and mental health (OP - I know you weren't necessarily talking about this form, but stick with me) is that there is no conclusive opinion. Unfortunately the use of even the phrase 'Trigger Warning' and its whole concept (on a large scale) is widely new. Of course in therapy and hospitals, schools, and other professions/als are trained for specific Trigger Warnings for victimology and for patient health. However, that is not what has been happening now, not what you see in the news.

 

With the advancement of "safe space" and the transfer of responsibility ("Its not MY fault, I was Triggered!"), which is actually a sociology issue going on right now. People are deferring a lot of things in their life to outside forces out of their control. It is a trend, and it was skyrocketing between about 2012-2017. But, actually, thanks to D. Trump people are now more aware of the types of people, not just the words. They are aware of the types of people who use this language for personal or biased gain. For example; Evolving from being triggered from a word (N**ger, Cr*cker, Sp**k, etc) to being triggered by the thought of a person; like D. Trump controlling things. What we are seeing is an over sensitivity to trivial things that don't actually have direct impact on our life (like that refugee across the country, or the homosexuals adopting children who would otherwise cycle the system). But to be offended by a person in general, by them just existing, that is where this warped sense of TWs come from. 

 

Before TW were for victims, now they are seen as Political Correctness and for those who can't handle mental strain. As Lass said, they have become a farce. It has morphed into helping and shielding known victims from harmful exposure, to teenagers using it when their parents ground them. 'Don't yell at me! Its triggering!' To adults using it to blame their own life faults on forces that don't affect them. 'Its not MY fault, I couldn't handle it!' It has done the typical thing and has morphed past the original use and now is being bastardized by social climate. But, the issue is, the mindset is still 'trending,' if you will.

 

And this is where the political involvement comes in. Politicians can easily see this. Why do you think buzz phrases in the states work so well? "We Need Change," "Make America Great Again!" etc, is implying that recently America has declined. And following the 2012-2017 emphasis, this then calls to those people who have fallen to this farce. 'Things ARE getting worse, we NEED to make things great AGAIN!'

 

Honestly, American Horror Story - Cult (don't ask me how I managed to watch it...) really hit it on the nose. Fear mongering. This is what TWs have become. ASIDES from this forum (because our Mods and Admins do a good job about cutting out the bullshit), most places use TW as way place to slander people or to control them ('get out of here, you are triggering'). So what we feel now is this animosity of censorship. Which is where I think I circle back to your issue, OP.

 

The TWs have mutated from helpful to downright discriminatory. And this is what we see in our Political world. Which is when people go "DONT talk about marriage its triggering." "Oh my God, I cannot believe you just brought up sex right now, that is rape culture!" "Sure YOU think that way, YOU'RE a WHITE MAN!" And so on.

 

I believe TWs are needed for their intended use, and the use we see here on the Forum. I recently commented on a thread about CG controlling what shows a little can watch, but I decided to take it to the next level as the little asked the opinion of the show. It was about suicide I went in depth in my response. So I politely put a [Trigger Warning] label at the top of my reply. The thread was about 13 Reasons why, yet no one had touched on what I wanted to. So out of respect to those who ARE harmed by words of suicide, I put that there. It didn't hurt me in any way, and it might have helped someone avoid my reply if they couldn't handle it. Did I find it inconvenient? Nope, not at all. And that is the mindset we need to have.

 

TWs should never be a 'job' it should be a courtesy. Now if you have severe TW, as those above said, YOU and YOU alone have the responsibility to take care of yourself. For instance, I will use myself. I cannot have children yet I have always wanted them. I am downplaying how devastating this news was for me. Yet when I am in chat, and the topic of childbearing, motherhood, etc come up, I don't ask people to stop, even though it is "triggering," I wait until I decide enough is enough and I leave. If after a long time it keeps going, then I politely ask someone to stop. That is it. If they don't I leave again. NO ONE ELSE has the responsibility to look after my own mental health but me, not even Daddy. As an adult, I make those choices (including to have Daddy on my side - but it is still MY choice).

 

I believe in TWs as they were originally implemented. They really do help victims recover. I hate TWs for what they have become now. An excuse to get your way or to feel superior. I think people need to take a good long hard look at themselves. If all of these things truly are triggering, that person is the common denomenator and that person needs to seek professional help. You cannot live your life through censorship - if you want that, you might as well become a shut it. 

 

A person MUST adapt to those things around them that hurt, scare, intimidate, make uncomfortable and so on to grow into a rounded and well-developed person. Otherwise your coping mechanism is avoidance and I promise you, even if no one else will, avoidance ONLY makes the issue worse. It festers, you don't see elements of it that can help you overcome the Trigger, instead avoidance creates a weight out of it. And the longer you avoid it, the heavier it gets. In my, not so humble, opinion. 

 

Also, I wrote this while the carpet guy was buzzing in my ear - so I apologize if it doesn't make sense....

[Guest Revurex]

My own opinion, is that trigger warnings have become a farce. Too often people just feel uncomfortable about certain subjects, so they claim to be "triggered", in order to shut down someone else's right to discourse.

For example, I am uncomfortable discussing certain kinks. Does that mean that I am triggered by them? No. It means as an adult, I have to take responsibility for my self and remove myself from the topic. It's not the responsibility of others to sensor themselves for my benefit. I can ask to have the subject changed, but I shouldn't demand it.

I have suffered multiple traumas. There are subjects which upset me because of this. Do I get upset and blame the media, authors, film makers, conversants etc. if I stumble across this type of content? No. I remove myself. That little red x, the power button, channel change button, or my own two feet can take me out of a situation. I don't need a trigger warning. I'm an adult, and I realize that life has unpleasant things in it. Blaming others for my reactions is not fair, and is disrespectful.

 

Sorry, I may have rambled.

 

 

"It is a mark of intelligence when a person can entertain an idea without agreeing on it."

 

 

As of right now, the Trauma portion of the use of TWs has actually been null and void - I'll explain below.

 

 

Lass I agree with you most of all.

 

 

Basically what I know about Trigger Warnings and mental health (OP - I know you weren't necessarily talking about this form, but stick with me) is that there is no conclusive opinion. Unfortunately the use of even the phrase 'Trigger Warning' and its whole concept (on a large scale) is widely new. Of course in therapy and hospitals, schools, and other professions/als are trained for specific Trigger Warnings for victimology and for patient health. However, that is not what has been happening now, not what you see in the news.

 

With the advancement of "safe space" and the transfer of responsibility ("Its not MY fault, I was Triggered!"), which is actually a sociology issue going on right now. People are deferring a lot of things in their life to outside forces out of their control. It is a trend, and it was skyrocketing between about 2012-2017. But, actually, thanks to D. Trump people are now more aware of the types of people, not just the words. They are aware of the types of people who use this language for personal or biased gain. For example; Evolving from being triggered from a word (N**ger, Cr*cker, Sp**k, etc) to being triggered by the thought of a person; like D. Trump controlling things. What we are seeing is an over sensitivity to trivial things that don't actually have direct impact on our life (like that refugee across the country, or the homosexuals adopting children who would otherwise cycle the system). But to be offended by a person in general, by them just existing, that is where this warped sense of TWs come from. 

 

Before TW were for victims, now they are seen as Political Correctness and for those who can't handle mental strain. As Lass said, they have become a farce. It has morphed into helping and shielding known victims from harmful exposure, to teenagers using it when their parents ground them. 'Don't yell at me! Its triggering!' To adults using it to blame their own life faults on forces that don't affect them. 'Its not MY fault, I couldn't handle it!' It has done the typical thing and has morphed past the original use and now is being bastardized by social climate. But, the issue is, the mindset is still 'trending,' if you will.

 

And this is where the political involvement comes in. Politicians can easily see this. Why do you think buzz phrases in the states work so well? "We Need Change," "Make America Great Again!" etc, is implying that recently America has declined. And following the 2012-2017 emphasis, this then calls to those people who have fallen to this farce. 'Things ARE getting worse, we NEED to make things great AGAIN!'

 

Honestly, American Horror Story - Cult (don't ask me how I managed to watch it...) really hit it on the nose. Fear mongering. This is what TWs have become. ASIDES from this forum (because our Mods and Admins do a good job about cutting out the bullshit), most places use TW as way place to slander people or to control them ('get out of here, you are triggering'). So what we feel now is this animosity of censorship. Which is where I think I circle back to your issue, OP.

 

The TWs have mutated from helpful to downright discriminatory. And this is what we see in our Political world. Which is when people go "DONT talk about marriage its triggering." "Oh my God, I cannot believe you just brought up sex right now, that is rape culture!" "Sure YOU think that way, YOU'RE a WHITE MAN!" And so on.

 

I believe TWs are needed for their intended use, and the use we see here on the Forum. I recently commented on a thread about CG controlling what shows a little can watch, but I decided to take it to the next level as the little asked the opinion of the show. It was about suicide I went in depth in my response. So I politely put a [Trigger Warning] label at the top of my reply. The thread was about 13 Reasons why, yet no one had touched on what I wanted to. So out of respect to those who ARE harmed by words of suicide, I put that there. It didn't hurt me in any way, and it might have helped someone avoid my reply if they couldn't handle it. Did I find it inconvenient? Nope, not at all. And that is the mindset we need to have.

 

TWs should never be a 'job' it should be a courtesy. Now if you have severe TW, as those above said, YOU and YOU alone have the responsibility to take care of yourself. For instance, I will use myself. I cannot have children yet I have always wanted them. I am downplaying how devastating this news was for me. Yet when I am in chat, and the topic of childbearing, motherhood, etc come up, I don't ask people to stop, even though it is "triggering," I wait until I decide enough is enough and I leave. If after a long time it keeps going, then I politely ask someone to stop. That is it. If they don't I leave again. NO ONE ELSE has the responsibility to look after my own mental health but me, not even Daddy. As an adult, I make those choices (including to have Daddy on my side - but it is still MY choice).

 

I believe in TWs as they were originally implemented. They really do help victims recover. I hate TWs for what they have become now. An excuse to get your way or to feel superior. I think people need to take a good long hard look at themselves. If all of these things truly are triggering, that person is the common denomenator and that person needs to seek professional help. You cannot live your life through censorship - if you want that, you might as well become a shut it. 

 

A person MUST adapt to those things around them that hurt, scare, intimidate, make uncomfortable and so on to grow into a rounded and well-developed person. Otherwise your coping mechanism is avoidance and I promise you, even if no one else will, avoidance ONLY makes the issue worse. It festers, you don't see elements of it that can help you overcome the Trigger, instead avoidance creates a weight out of it. And the longer you avoid it, the heavier it gets. In my, not so humble, opinion. 

 

Also, I wrote this while the carpet guy was buzzing in my ear - so I apologize if it doesn't make sense....

 

Initially, I was viewing trigger warning for what they have become rather than how they were originally implemented. A sociology issue. Mostly observing what was/is taking place on college campuses and in the political sphere. It’s become so toxic. So much so I even avoided mentioning that side of the discussion because I was concerned with the thread turning into a political screaming match. You touched on most of my concerns and eloquently described the current issues. 

 

 

I've since narrowed my focus to the trauma aspect because that’s the area where the validity lies. I wish we could easily separate the two groups, dismiss the group that has turned it into a farce, and define what warrants a trigger warning. I’d be much more inclined to advocate for them. It seems whenever something is loosely defined the ones with a negative agenda happened to be the loudest. I’ve also noticed a major flaw with my view. I was assuming those who required trigger warnings were probably avoiding their trigger altogether. Which as you’ve stated would be unhealthy. Obviously, that’s not the case and a ridiculous assumption. Just because you don’t want to be exposed to your trigger at 2 pm on Tuesday doesn’t mean you’re not working on your mental health. Removing that assumption makes it much more clear. For now I’ll stick with common sense and provide them as a courtesy. 

[Little Illy]

So much so I even avoided mentioning that side of the discussion because I was concerned with the thread turning into a political screaming match. You touched on most of my concerns and eloquently described the current issues. 

 

I've since narrowed my focus to the trauma aspect because that’s the area where the validity lies.

 

It seems whenever something is loosely defined the ones with a negative agenda happened to be the loudest.

 

I was assuming those who required trigger warnings were probably avoiding their trigger altogether. Removing that assumption makes it much more clear. For now I’ll stick with common sense and provide them as a courtesy. 

 

Revurex - I appreciate your kind words, and I think I knew where you were truly looking at when you posed these questions. I will say, I never stop at the controversial line, nor the line where people think things shouldn't be discussed. And it sounds like you wanted the same - to address an issue people are too PC or afraid or hesitant to bring up. Don't ever be afraid to question things - because once we stop questioning, that's when things get way out of hand. This is how we, as individuals, gain wisdom. By having these possible controversial conversations.

 

Anyways.

 

What I highlighted was my main reason for popping back in - you are absolutely right. And just by taking your experience you can see how, even second-hand, the fake existence of TWs in society (on campuses, etc) has given you a biased thought on them. And we can see how a lot of people are pissed off on the modern form of TWs. Because those who use them obnoxiously are the ones who get attention.

 

There have always been a form of trigger warnings way before we were ever here. Just look at television new: "The following is graphic, those with children, please look away." How about the example everyone has mentioned above - movie, television and video game ratings. Go back to way back in the day; women were shielded from everything for the sole purpose of sparing their "fragile constitutions." TWs have always been around. It wasn't until more modern psychology started using them in therapy that we realized the impact (both negative and positive) they can have. Exposure therapy requires a controlled amount of TWs from phases to the next steps or stages of therapy. Therapists will commonly say "look for your triggers, right now I believe X is too much for you," and so forth. 

 

But now, people are realizing the fear everyone has when someone accuses them of harming them mentally. Even you, you didn't want to bring up the political aspect because we didn't want to trigger those who get loud and rude about politics. We all succumb to it, just to save drama for ourselves. And so the original intent is lost and people recognize the power this stupid implication - Trigger Warning - holds. That is where you have those obnoxious people at the campuses, or those who refuse to hear opposing views simply because they don't want to. And disguise it all as a trigger.

 

Trauma related TWs or serious mental health related TWs are the only ones valid in my eyes. And Im actually grateful you started this thread because it is an abstract concept we all use, yet know very little of.

[Guest depth_of_field_ddlg]

A few things I feel strongly about.

 

1. Trigger Warnings don't restrict content or censor the OP; it's just a courtesy warning for those who may be adversely affected by the content. It's offering someone with PTSD (or anyone, for that matter) the choice (and chance) to avoid content that can cause unnecessary emotional issues. Imagine you have a fear of flying, but while scrolling through facebook, a video of an airplane crash auto-plays. You didn't really have a chance to avoid that content, now you have to spend the next hour dealing with an anxiety attack. 

 

2. Trigger Warnings add accessibility and promote inclusion. If you run a group without trigger warnings, and you frequently come across triggering content, you're really left with no choice but to leave that group. I was in a Facebook group that focused on BDSM for those with chronic illness, but the mods frequently discussed, in detail, rape fantasies, choking, and even a few pictures of genital torture. When I asked for trigger warnings, I was hit with a waaaaaave of anger, accusing me of kink shaming. That the simple act of "warning" and "labeling" content was a violation of their free speech and shaming their kinks. At no point did I ever tell them to stop talking about it, or tell them that their kinks were “gross”, I just asked for a brief label so I had the autonomy to engage or ignore that content that I found personally upsetting (but didn’t tell them that because I wanted to respect their kinks).  I want to be a part of the group, and am more than happy to contribute to other topics, but wandering around a group like that is like walking through a minefield without a map. Don’t force someone out of the social circle because they’re having a hard time.

 

3. Writing a Trigger Warning takes a few seconds, but can save someone a night of pain and suffering. Be empathetic. Even for minor warnings that you feel are too general and unnecessary, it’s nice to know that you weren’t the cause of someone else’s stress and suffering because of something you wrote.

 

4. Asking for a Trigger Warning is completely different than asking to stop a conversation. It’s pretty easy to spot a bad actor who is using “trauma” to manipulate and control a conversation. Don’t let them harden your heart to those who have a legitimate reason to change the subject. I won’t get into this further, because that’s a whole other debate. Just know that when TW’s are talked about, they’re not asking you change a topic…just label it.

 

5. Trigger Warnings should be talked about as a group, debated fairly, be as inclusive as possible, and be very clear as to what content will contain and TW and what won’t. If multiple people ask for a TW, it’s a good sign that it should be implemented. Even something as simple as “dogs”, don’t make them feel like shit for asking or force them to explain why. The “Burden of Proof” doesn’t apply to mental health in this situation. If you disagree, make it clear that you will not include that as a TW, so those with those triggers know they may encounter that content without warning.

 

6. How someone manages their PTSD is none of your fucking business. It’s ableist and degrading to say things like “grow up” or “we’re all adults here”. Would you walk up to a war veteran with a fire cracker on the 4^th of July, light it and say “oh, exposure therapy is good for you! Stop being a child, it’s just a firework!.” Of course not. You’re not their therapist, you don’t know what they’re doing to manage their trauma, and it’s totally reasonable to expect someone who’s been in therapy for years to still be easily re-traumatized by events, even on good days. Just because exposure therapy worked for you doesn’t mean it works for others. Don’t add to the stigma, don’t play therapist, don’t humiliate someone struggling with mental illness.

 

7. Lastly, Be mindful that the internet as a whole is a collective of communities, and is neither a safe space nor inherently a platform for unrestricted "freedom of speech". If you want to see what free speech and zero censorship looks like, take a look at /pol on 8chan (I won't link it because it's so horrifying) and see how many awful, awful things are talked about. 

[Guest Revurex]

A few things I feel strongly about.

 

1. Trigger Warnings don't restrict content or censor the OP; it's just a courtesy warning for those who may be adversely affected by the content. It's offering someone with PTSD (or anyone, for that matter) the choice (and chance) to avoid content that can cause unnecessary emotional issues. Imagine you have a fear of flying, but while scrolling through facebook, a video of an airplane crash auto-plays. You didn't really have a chance to avoid that content, now you have to spend the next hour dealing with an anxiety attack. 

 

2. Trigger Warnings add accessibility and promote inclusion. If you run a group without trigger warnings, and you frequently come across triggering content, you're really left with no choice but to leave that group. I was in a Facebook group that focused on BDSM for those with chronic illness, but the mods frequently discussed, in detail, rape fantasies, choking, and even a few pictures of genital torture. When I asked for trigger warnings, I was hit with a waaaaaave of anger, accusing me of kink shaming. That the simple act of "warning" and "labeling" content was a violation of their free speech and shaming their kinks. At no point did I ever tell them to stop talking about it, or tell them that their kinks were “gross”, I just asked for a brief label so I had the autonomy to engage or ignore that content that I found personally upsetting (but didn’t tell them that because I wanted to respect their kinks).  I want to be a part of the group, and am more than happy to contribute to other topics, but wandering around a group like that is like walking through a minefield without a map. Don’t force someone out of the social circle because they’re having a hard time.

 

3. Writing a Trigger Warning takes a few seconds, but can save someone a night of pain and suffering. Be empathetic. Even for minor warnings that you feel are too general and unnecessary, it’s nice to know that you weren’t the cause of someone else’s stress and suffering because of something you wrote.

 

4. Asking for a Trigger Warning is completely different than asking to stop a conversation. It’s pretty easy to spot a bad actor who is using “trauma” to manipulate and control a conversation. Don’t let them harden your heart to those who have a legitimate reason to change the subject. I won’t get into this further, because that’s a whole other debate. Just know that when TW’s are talked about, they’re not asking you change a topic…just label it.

 

5. Trigger Warnings should be talked about as a group, debated fairly, be as inclusive as possible, and be very clear as to what content will contain and TW and what won’t. If multiple people ask for a TW, it’s a good sign that it should be implemented. Even something as simple as “dogs”, don’t make them feel like shit for asking or force them to explain why. The “Burden of Proof” doesn’t apply to mental health in this situation. If you disagree, make it clear that you will not include that as a TW, so those with those triggers know they may encounter that content without warning.

 

6. How someone manages their PTSD is none of your fucking business. It’s ableist and degrading to say things like “grow up” or “we’re all adults here”. Would you walk up to a war veteran with a fire cracker on the 4^th of July, light it and say “oh, exposure therapy is good for you! Stop being a child, it’s just a firework!.” Of course not. You’re not their therapist, you don’t know what they’re doing to manage their trauma, and it’s totally reasonable to expect someone who’s been in therapy for years to still be easily re-traumatized by events, even on good days. Just because exposure therapy worked for you doesn’t mean it works for others. Don’t add to the stigma, don’t play therapist, don’t humiliate someone struggling with mental illness.

 

7. Lastly, Be mindful that the internet as a whole is a collective of communities, and is neither a safe space nor inherently a platform for unrestricted "freedom of speech". If you want to see what free speech and zero censorship looks like, take a look at /pol on 8chan (I won't link it because it's so horrifying) and see how many awful, awful things are talked about. 

 

 

 

1. When used genuinely I would agree they don’t restrict content or censor the OP. Often times they’re not used genuinely and it does restrict and or censor speech. Numerous of those examples are detailed in IIIy’s post.

 

2. I  agree they promote accessibility and inclusion. I assume the FB groups reaction was due to others trying to censor them. Purely speculation, though. I think it could have been handled differently but I also think they have the right to say no. Like me, they probably have a fear of it evolving beyond a simple warning to being told what they can and can’t post. That is the climate we’re dealing with.

 

3. Indeed

 

4. This is one aspect that causes me a lot of conflict with this subject. I've learned to distinguish the genuine people from the bad actors but the bad actors are much louder and control a lot of the narrative around Trigger warnings.

 

5.  Agreed. As I’ve said previously, I think defining them is critical. It’s when things are loosely defined that negative agendas become the loudest which is a problem we’re seeing all across academic institutions in America. 

 

6. Most of that is common sense. The point of this thread was to create discourse. I don’t see anyone being an ableist, adding to the stigma, playing therapist, or trying to humiliate.

 

7. I’d say I’m pretty mindful especially being that I come from this awful world you speak of. I’ve spent many years on 4chan/8chan. It’s horrifying and I love it. It's been my primary place for socializing online. Not so much anymore, though. Personally, I find nothing too offensive and prefer a place where nothing is off limits. That's also how I deal with trauma. Through demented and offensive humor. However, I would never push that onto others.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Revurex

[I_AM_THE_SENATE]

A few things I feel strongly about.

 

1. Trigger Warnings don't restrict content or censor the OP; it's just a courtesy warning for those who may be adversely affected by the content. It's offering someone with PTSD (or anyone, for that matter) the choice (and chance) to avoid content that can cause unnecessary emotional issues. Imagine you have a fear of flying, but while scrolling through facebook, a video of an airplane crash auto-plays. You didn't really have a chance to avoid that content, now you have to spend the next hour dealing with an anxiety attack. 

 

2. Trigger Warnings add accessibility and promote inclusion. If you run a group without trigger warnings, and you frequently come across triggering content, you're really left with no choice but to leave that group. I was in a Facebook group that focused on BDSM for those with chronic illness, but the mods frequently discussed, in detail, rape fantasies, choking, and even a few pictures of genital torture. When I asked for trigger warnings, I was hit with a waaaaaave of anger, accusing me of kink shaming. That the simple act of "warning" and "labeling" content was a violation of their free speech and shaming their kinks. At no point did I ever tell them to stop talking about it, or tell them that their kinks were “gross”, I just asked for a brief label so I had the autonomy to engage or ignore that content that I found personally upsetting (but didn’t tell them that because I wanted to respect their kinks).  I want to be a part of the group, and am more than happy to contribute to other topics, but wandering around a group like that is like walking through a minefield without a map. Don’t force someone out of the social circle because they’re having a hard time.

 

3. Writing a Trigger Warning takes a few seconds, but can save someone a night of pain and suffering. Be empathetic. Even for minor warnings that you feel are too general and unnecessary, it’s nice to know that you weren’t the cause of someone else’s stress and suffering because of something you wrote.

 

4. Asking for a Trigger Warning is completely different than asking to stop a conversation. It’s pretty easy to spot a bad actor who is using “trauma” to manipulate and control a conversation. Don’t let them harden your heart to those who have a legitimate reason to change the subject. I won’t get into this further, because that’s a whole other debate. Just know that when TW’s are talked about, they’re not asking you change a topic…just label it.

 

5. Trigger Warnings should be talked about as a group, debated fairly, be as inclusive as possible, and be very clear as to what content will contain and TW and what won’t. If multiple people ask for a TW, it’s a good sign that it should be implemented. Even something as simple as “dogs”, don’t make them feel like shit for asking or force them to explain why. The “Burden of Proof” doesn’t apply to mental health in this situation. If you disagree, make it clear that you will not include that as a TW, so those with those triggers know they may encounter that content without warning.

 

6. How someone manages their PTSD is none of your fucking business. It’s ableist and degrading to say things like “grow up” or “we’re all adults here”. Would you walk up to a war veteran with a fire cracker on the 4^th of July, light it and say “oh, exposure therapy is good for you! Stop being a child, it’s just a firework!.” Of course not. You’re not their therapist, you don’t know what they’re doing to manage their trauma, and it’s totally reasonable to expect someone who’s been in therapy for years to still be easily re-traumatized by events, even on good days. Just because exposure therapy worked for you doesn’t mean it works for others. Don’t add to the stigma, don’t play therapist, don’t humiliate someone struggling with mental illness.

 

7. Lastly, Be mindful that the internet as a whole is a collective of communities, and is neither a safe space nor inherently a platform for unrestricted "freedom of speech". If you want to see what free speech and zero censorship looks like, take a look at /pol on 8chan (I won't link it because it's so horrifying) and see how many awful, awful things are talked about. 

I found your opinions interesting to say the least and i'd like to offer some comments. 

 

You mention that trigger warnings don't restrict content and in theory I think you're right, provided that the warnings themselves are recommended as opposed to compelled. However, the theory often does not play out as we would wish in practise. In reality, people attempt to prevent others from speaking because they find a topic 'triggering' rather than removing themselves from the situation. I have seen this type of behaviour on this forum to an extent and elsewhere. So, whilst the warnings themselves are not inherently problematic, the people that arise in a place where they exist in excess can be bad for a community. After all, what is the point in having a community where ideas cannot be discussed freely?

 

You bring up the example of an airplane crash autoplay on Facebook. Whilst I agree it is advisable for a company to put such content behind a screen that requires a click to view rather than playing automatically, if one knows that one will have an hour long anxiety attack from some form of content that could appear anywhere, one ought to avoid Facebook and other such places until the trauma has been resolved. Coincidentally, I am petrified of flying despite having done it may times, it just doesn't get easier for me. Whilst staying with family recently my Grandfather chose to watch a programme about plane crashes and as I knew it would make me anxious next time I flew, I removed myself from the room and did something else. It is not other peoples job to police my anxieties, that responsibility is mine and mine alone. The choice is yours to avoid the content, avoid places that may show it. Whilst this is not practical it leaves the solution of dealing with your 'triggers' in a healthy way. 

 

You use the example of the Facebook group you were a part of. Whilst I consider the reaction of that community to somewhat excessive, it seems to me that they were well within their rights to act the way they did. One cannot enter a community and require them to act a certain way for your own benefit. If they're good people they will, but you cannot rely on it. I do not feel that they excluded you from the group at all, as you were requiring them to make a change for you. Whilst it would have been simple to implement said change I do not feel they are under any obligation to. I think your requirements meant that in a roundabout sort of way, whilst you did not choose how those topics made you feel, you excluded yourself due to your feelings. I am not saying you necessarily chose what upsets you, but you did not meet the requirements of that community be it through free will or otherwise.  You cannot change the prerequisites for a community as in a way, I suppose they are inherently exclusive due to the way interests function in a community. Of course, the beauty of the internet is that if you don't like a community, you can go and start your own with requirements that you set. This is not meant to be a personal attack but rather an attempt to explain that one cannot change a community due to their own existing wants or needs, regardless of whether or not they are a choice. Apologies if this comes off as cold; it was not my intention. 

 

You assert that writing a trigger warning is a way to not feel guilt for causing them suffering or stress. If I trigger someone I shall not feel guilty provided it was not directly intentional. Two people are responsible in decreasing order. The person who hurt them so badly in the first place that the topic could cause them to feel this way and the person with the trigger for exposing themselves to the world at large. Whilst I recognise that that this is a requirement for life, one must learn to deal with their triggers as everyone else will not tiptoe around conversation. 

 

I agree that a trigger warning is different to attempting to end a discussion, but I have already discussed how I believe those to things are intertwined and why. Further explanation can be given if required. 

 

I am not sure that just because a large proportion of people want trigger warnings, doesn't mean that they should be implemented. A large proportion of people wanting something doesn't make it inherently good, (depending on which jurisprudential school of thought one wishes to use) on the contrary it can be detrimental to people. If we take things to a macro level here and assert that trigger warnings can cause people problems by preventing people from dealing with the trauma then it is clear that it's inherently bad. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying that if it were then even if people wanted it, it would still be inherently bad for them. Large groups of people want things that are not inherently good from a logical perspective; does this mean we should implement these things? Well again, that depends on your personal philosophies but for the moment I shall conclude 'no'. 

 

I'm not going to address the concept that it is 'ableist' to say things like "grow up" in such scenarios because I find too much wrong with that statement to address it here. All I shall say is that a right to say what is on your mind and discuss ideas openly must always trump the right to be comfortable because the latter is both impossible for everyone all the time and also prevents humanity from discovering that which is right and true. 

However, I will comment on your veteran example. Depending on the circumstances, if I remember my English or scots criminal law correctly, (forgive me it's been a while since I've studied those modules so I cannot remember which legal system I'm about to describe) what you've described could fit the definition for assault. This is because you have gone up to the veteran with the intent of causing them fear and harm (to put it simply) and you have done so. However, if a veteran turns up to say for example my fireworks party and it causes them issues, then that is wholly their fault. What did they expect? It's a fireworks party. The issue here is whether or not triggering things are being forced on people. Opinions are never truly forced on people on the internet. Just don't view content online if you feel yourself fragile. 

I'll also mention here that on a personal level I won't attempt to manage someone's mental issues. However, compelling the use of trigger warnings it seems to some extent, is forcing me in some way to manage their mental illness (if even to a small extent) and thus the comments you make about it not being my business seem problematic from a logical perspective for me. 

 

I will finish here by addressing you last point. The internet and by and large life, should be unrestricted in terms of free speech. The restriction of speech always, always ends badly. I'm not sure what you've referenced at the bottom there but I support their right to talk about bad things, provided they are not inciting criminal activities. Discussing them is fine but what I will define here as conspiracy to commit a crime is the only line i'm willing to draw. 

 

I hope my opinions have proved helpful to some extent, even if you don't agree. Please don't interpret them as a personal attack, quite the opposite. I found your arguments compelling enough to offer comment. I've been told that my writing often appears cold or confrontational. I'm just going to take a moment here that this is something I'm attempting to work on and still haven't got quite right. My intention is not to confront, personally attack or offend, merely to discuss as effectively as possible

 

Hope you enjoyed,

 

Ya boi,

 

The Senate.