Did I say as much?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trigger warnings, not so great after all.
- Thread starter Enoch07
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I'm just asking for clarification and examples, because nothing you're saying is making much sense to me. No need to talk down to me - I'm honestly just trying to figure out your position.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
My experience with trigger warnings has mainly been with horror writing. There are a few places on the internet where stories are required to flair certain topics. Child/animal abuse, rape and torture all need a little notification warning people about the content. You're still allowed to write and post stories containing those topics so censorship arguments fall flat in my opinion.
What that flair system achieves is twofold:
1. If somebody really does have past trauma and reading about those things might cause undue distress, they know which stories to avoid.
2. If somebody just doesn't want to read about certain topics, they know which stories to avoid. I'll personally avoid any story about animal abuse.
To me that's just a sensible way of doing things, particularly regarding entertainment. It's no different in my view to the little box on the back of a DVD that might say something like, "Contains strong violence." News broadcasts will also often contain a warning before showing certain footage so that people can be forewarned.
Even if the article's findings are universally applicable and that a trigger warning actually increases the anxiety of people who read/watch/view the content, using this to claim the concept itself is worthless is entirely missing the point. Warnings exist to help you decide what you might want to avoid, not to ease the tension if you decide to go ahead anyway.
All of this is coming from a longtime horror geek. I've read and watched some pretty extreme stuff over the years and want people to be able to explore disturbing topics. I also want people to know what they're getting into. There's a good reason Martyrs has a different age rating to The Grudge and I've no interest in insulting somebody because they'd prefer not to see depictions of graphic torture.
What that flair system achieves is twofold:
1. If somebody really does have past trauma and reading about those things might cause undue distress, they know which stories to avoid.
2. If somebody just doesn't want to read about certain topics, they know which stories to avoid. I'll personally avoid any story about animal abuse.
To me that's just a sensible way of doing things, particularly regarding entertainment. It's no different in my view to the little box on the back of a DVD that might say something like, "Contains strong violence." News broadcasts will also often contain a warning before showing certain footage so that people can be forewarned.
Even if the article's findings are universally applicable and that a trigger warning actually increases the anxiety of people who read/watch/view the content, using this to claim the concept itself is worthless is entirely missing the point. Warnings exist to help you decide what you might want to avoid, not to ease the tension if you decide to go ahead anyway.
All of this is coming from a longtime horror geek. I've read and watched some pretty extreme stuff over the years and want people to be able to explore disturbing topics. I also want people to know what they're getting into. There's a good reason Martyrs has a different age rating to The Grudge and I've no interest in insulting somebody because they'd prefer not to see depictions of graphic torture.
Road Less Traveled
Active Member
Everybody suffers from triggers and everywhere around us are warnings and assaults that try to trigger us.
I think of them as switches inside of people. They are easily triggered and switched on via emotions and biases. There are all sorts of them. The more common ones being sexual, defensive, words, guilt, anger, jealousy, pride, etc.
If someone doesn’t have control of or know themselves, it is all too easy for these switches to be turned on/triggered and used for control and manipulations.
I’d always recommend anyone who are able to, to go to war and battle and fight them, try to overcome them rather then excuses for rumination, which there are just more assaults on people to keep them imprisoned and from conquering them, enabling them. While also, if aware as to what makes another triggered, to avoid triggering them. There are more sensible ways to speak to and help assist others without triggering. And more sensible ways to try and help boost another up, nudge them to go on a journey to try and overcome without force or hostility. And people who are aware of what triggers them should try to avoid those scenes and circumstances and situations. Especially with the more serious and traumatic ones. They are able to be overcome in most. So, there would be a middle path. It is saddening seeing almost everyone triggered so easily and almost everyone vulnerable and easily offended rather than strengthened. Especially taking offense at mere words. Buttons, switches are triggered on so easily.
It seems that most humans are control freaks, so they get off on trying to trigger others in order to manipulate and control them. Many unaware and some aware of even what they are doing.
I think of them as switches inside of people. They are easily triggered and switched on via emotions and biases. There are all sorts of them. The more common ones being sexual, defensive, words, guilt, anger, jealousy, pride, etc.
If someone doesn’t have control of or know themselves, it is all too easy for these switches to be turned on/triggered and used for control and manipulations.
I’d always recommend anyone who are able to, to go to war and battle and fight them, try to overcome them rather then excuses for rumination, which there are just more assaults on people to keep them imprisoned and from conquering them, enabling them. While also, if aware as to what makes another triggered, to avoid triggering them. There are more sensible ways to speak to and help assist others without triggering. And more sensible ways to try and help boost another up, nudge them to go on a journey to try and overcome without force or hostility. And people who are aware of what triggers them should try to avoid those scenes and circumstances and situations. Especially with the more serious and traumatic ones. They are able to be overcome in most. So, there would be a middle path. It is saddening seeing almost everyone triggered so easily and almost everyone vulnerable and easily offended rather than strengthened. Especially taking offense at mere words. Buttons, switches are triggered on so easily.
It seems that most humans are control freaks, so they get off on trying to trigger others in order to manipulate and control them. Many unaware and some aware of even what they are doing.
Last edited:
This is a really weird issue to me. Having only been recently introduced to the name "trigger warnings" via this thread, but recognizing that I am familiar with them through movies and television, I had no idea to the extent they had spread into popular culture.
I recall walking to lunch with a colleague once and discussing my interest in getting a speaker for a meeting I was leading. The colleague suggested another guy we worked with and my immediate and unfettered response was "I wouldn't p*** on that guy if he burst into flames". My colleagues follow up was that he was sorry and didn't realize it was a trigger issue with me. Beyond my lack of respect and dislike for the other person at the immediate center of our discussion it wasn't. Given the nature of my relationship with the colleague I was talking to, my response was not outside the scope of the decorum between us. Perhaps it was a trigger issue with me. I did not suffer much over the mention of the other person.
The point is that I prefer maintaining my own sense of decorum that can shift depending on present company and present situation. I am not a fan of enforced behavior.
However, I do recognize that there are people that have had experiences that can be triggered by unrelated comments and associations that are expressed by the people around them. I try to keep that in mind, when speaking with others, but also recognize that I have my own freedoms to express myself too.
To me, this is a similar issue to political correctness. I am against the idea of enforced conditions on the freedom of speech. Again, my approach is a sense of decorum. I would not intentionally mention something around a person I knew had suffered some form of abuse or PTSD out of my own choice as a person. I cannot make others follow that rule nor would I want to see others made to follow my personal rules. Some of them are probably not as strong as others and some are probably draconian.
I think this is part of the controversy here. The argument over a freedom of speech and the rights of others not to be subjected to certain speech or conditions.
The question that comes immediately to mind from this is not new. How far should I monitor and control my own freedom of speech and how much should others recognize the possibility that, in the public arena, they are going to encounter that trigger negative feelings in themselves.
In human interaction, it is a two way street. One side should not suffer for the other side. But there should be openness, understanding and compassion on both sides. You can't enforce that either.
I recall walking to lunch with a colleague once and discussing my interest in getting a speaker for a meeting I was leading. The colleague suggested another guy we worked with and my immediate and unfettered response was "I wouldn't p*** on that guy if he burst into flames". My colleagues follow up was that he was sorry and didn't realize it was a trigger issue with me. Beyond my lack of respect and dislike for the other person at the immediate center of our discussion it wasn't. Given the nature of my relationship with the colleague I was talking to, my response was not outside the scope of the decorum between us. Perhaps it was a trigger issue with me. I did not suffer much over the mention of the other person.
The point is that I prefer maintaining my own sense of decorum that can shift depending on present company and present situation. I am not a fan of enforced behavior.
However, I do recognize that there are people that have had experiences that can be triggered by unrelated comments and associations that are expressed by the people around them. I try to keep that in mind, when speaking with others, but also recognize that I have my own freedoms to express myself too.
To me, this is a similar issue to political correctness. I am against the idea of enforced conditions on the freedom of speech. Again, my approach is a sense of decorum. I would not intentionally mention something around a person I knew had suffered some form of abuse or PTSD out of my own choice as a person. I cannot make others follow that rule nor would I want to see others made to follow my personal rules. Some of them are probably not as strong as others and some are probably draconian.
I think this is part of the controversy here. The argument over a freedom of speech and the rights of others not to be subjected to certain speech or conditions.
The question that comes immediately to mind from this is not new. How far should I monitor and control my own freedom of speech and how much should others recognize the possibility that, in the public arena, they are going to encounter that trigger negative feelings in themselves.
In human interaction, it is a two way street. One side should not suffer for the other side. But there should be openness, understanding and compassion on both sides. You can't enforce that either.
I still see freedom of expression as central to the issue. But you make some good points that have are helpful in thinking about this. I am not against including warnings on certain content that may be contained in the news, TV shows, movies or other media. I agree, it does not prevent the expression of the creators of the content, but the wider application is contiguous with freedom of expression.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Treating it as "time to melt some snow" is just as bad as the demand for them. The inherent problem and issue with them is that they do hinder recovery and healing for people who have experienced a traumatic experience. But to want to melt them is cruel. They need help and healing, not further damage.The Latest Study on Trigger Warnings Finally Convinced Me They’re Not Worth It
Looks like trigger warnings and the "pls don't offend meh" culture actually hurts people instead of helping them. Huh, who would have thought barring yourself in an echo chamber not allowed to be "offended" by new or different ideas would be detrimental to your mental health.
Guess it's time to melt some snow.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Ultimately it comes down to choice in my opinion. Giving people a heads up as to what something contains seems more reasonable to me than either blanket bans on particular topics* or a complete lack of any regulation. It means that the creator has a choice of what to create and the consumer has a choice of what to consume.
*I'll mention here that any discussion of freedom of expression comes with caveats. Most people tend to draw the line at attempting to cause deliberate harm. For example, posting the personal details of somebody you don't like online with the intention of having that person harassed/attacked.
If content publishers and ratings associations enforce particular ratings, then there is little choice for the creators of content, but I agree with you on the use of a warning statement where it is applicable in those conditions. In some ways, it may actually stimulate interest in a particular work depending on the audience.
I recall the whoopla associated with the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ". A sort of social version of a trigger warning that was presented by many conservative Christian people and organizations. It actually made me curious to see the movie and determine what it was that was so bad for me to see.
Warnings change our state of perception and expectation.
I think we may hold very similar views on the freedom of expression, based on what I am reading here.
This thread may actually be helping me to understand an issue that I had not thought much about, and one that seems to have much wider impact than I would have considered.
I think I can maintain my views on the freedom of expression while making room for people that have experienced trauma. I hope others can too.
I agree that freedom of expression crosses the line in the classic example of yelling fire in a crowded room when there is no fire.
Shad
Veteran Member
The Latest Study on Trigger Warnings Finally Convinced Me They’re Not Worth It
Looks like trigger warnings and the "pls don't offend meh" culture actually hurts people instead of helping them. Huh, who would have thought barring yourself in an echo chamber not allowed to be "offended" by new or different ideas would be detrimental to your mental health.
Guess it's time to melt some snow.
All this nonsense could be solved by everyone placing 1 sign next to their front door on an interior wall.
"Warning: Reality beyond this door(s)"
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Ahh the relationship between creators, publishers and distributors is a tricky one as we're now looking at the freedom of expression of multiple parties. I have a lot of thoughts (and more than a few swear words) regarding that relationship but it's a little off topic. For now I'll just say that the right to express something is coupled with the right not to express something. When two co-dependent parties can't agree on what should/shouldn't be expressed they either have to compromise or part ways... in an ideal world. As is, publishers and distributors tend to hold disproportionate power but I already said this is going off topic so I'll just stop
I do think we have fairly similar views on this one by the way
So far, but being two different people there is no telling what divergences and convergences exist. Thankfully. Besides, there would be no interesting and useful conversations.Ahh the relationship between creators, publishers and distributors is a tricky one as we're now looking at the freedom of expression of multiple parties. I have a lot of thoughts (and more than a few swear words) regarding that relationship but it's a little off topic. For now I'll just say that the right to express something is coupled with the right not to express something. When two co-dependent parties can't agree on what should/shouldn't be expressed they either have to compromise or part ways... in an ideal world. As is, publishers and distributors tend to hold disproportionate power but I already said this is going off topic so I'll just stop
I do think we have fairly similar views on this one by the way
Nah there is a difference between those that actually suffer PTSD, and those that abuse it and pretend. The ones that have a need for trigger warnings are not "snowflakes". The ones that just use it a shield to guard themselves from opinions and viewpoints they don't like, that's a "snowflake". That's the ones that need melting.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
In my experience, any decent human being will be able to at least tell something is off in someone if a topic makes them uncomfortable. People who have been raped, been on some end of dealing with drug addiction, war, there are indeed many things that understandably will make someone with fresh wounds uneasy. Such things shouldn't be politicized, ridiculed, or even associated with this "PC" nonsense. This is a group that does need help, and the eagerness to generalize and lump them with the whiners is cruel, because this is a group that should be given consideration.
On the other hand, there are those who are legit whiny and take offense over things there is no reason for offense and expect the world to cater to their insecurities. These sorts, in my experience, will not even consider context and if they don't like something they will try to silence people by saying "that triggers me." This is a group that is pathetic and really just needs to get over themselves and accept that reality and world and society doesn't and shouldn't cater to them.
Liu
Well-Known Member
With threads like this I really feel that I'm living in a different country than most of you.
Besides the website I was refering to on page 1 of this thread, I can't recall a single instance of having been asked to warn people ahead before a specific topic, or for any other kind of trigger warning, and that website is from the US as far as I recall.
Besides the website I was refering to on page 1 of this thread, I can't recall a single instance of having been asked to warn people ahead before a specific topic, or for any other kind of trigger warning, and that website is from the US as far as I recall.