Trigger warnings, not so great after all.

[Enoch07]

So far most I've met who use 'SJW' unironically have been dicks who just want to be able to say whatever they want with no social consequence. And much more ironically get really offended and sensitive when told they're being trollish, and people don't want to be around them.

The difference is I want other to be able to be dingleberys as well as myself.

SJW types want to be able to offend but not be offended.

For instance certain echo chamber you are not allowed to call someone a snowflake, but at the same time members of that echo chamber can call others neckbeards and other derogatory terms with no punishment. I think both should be allowed to speak their mind freely without censorship.

Been spending a lot of time on reddit?

No, the only thing I use reddit for is gaming tips when I come across something tough. I don't even have an account with Reddit. Don't use 4 chan either, little known fact, most trolls left 4 chan about 3 years ago because wannabes joined. The "real 4 chan" community is in other places now. So whenever you see someone talking about 4 chan stuff nowadays, it's a weenie pleb pretender tryna be edgy.

Incidentally the ratings system have most definitely got people fired, usually by trying to get around it because they care about how much more money they can get in a certain ratings bracket.

Well it's not the ratings system itself chasing down the users though. That's my point.

It's like one of the same three transphobic jokes about the 'did you presume my gender?' Really comes from blowhards, not actual trans folks, but has become the blowhard rallying cry for 'how transgenders act'. The nonsense of 'you'll get sued if you're not pc enough' is similarly laughable.

Nope it's real.

Is political correctness screwing up the workplace?

What a selfish snowflake trying to control my behavior and coddle them!

That looks like a legit trigger warning.

Saying a word like "moist" shouldn't cause people to freeze up and have a panic attack. *using a real life reference, I know somebody with this*

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The difference is I want other to be able to be dingleberys as well as myself.

SJW types want to be able to offend but not be offended.

For instance certain echo chamber you are not allowed to call someone a snowflake, but at the same time members of that echo chamber can call other neckbeards and other derogatory terms with no punishment. I think both should be allowed to speak their mind freely without cendorship.

You're not allowed to call someone neckbeards here either, unless they're not a member. Frankly the 'unbridled unmoderated' corners of the internet are such cesspits that I will pass. As with the rest, the call for no 'censorship' so often boils down to 'let me say this deliberately insulting thing with no consequence.'

Well it's not the ratings system itself chasing down the users though. That's my point.

It's literally the ratings associations such as the MPA which make the calls or punish those who try and get around ratings.

Nope it's real.

Is political correctness screwing up the workplace?

An Op-ed that sounds like aforementioned dick who hates being told he's being a dick.
I'll raise it the sort of rebuttal I think it deserves:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

That looks like a legit trigger warning.

Saying a word like "moist" shouldn't cause people to freeze up and have a panic attack. *using a real life reference, I know somebody with this*

You think it's legit because you are familiar with it, but in reality you don't know someone's trauma or how it ties in to certain words, smells, sights, tastes etc.
The media I mentioned in the last post was, of all things, the pilot episode of Jessica Jones. And believe me, I was just as surprised as you probably are. But upon reviewing it for a long time, turns out a mind-controlling villain who makes victims feel like they weren't strong enough or didn't fight hard enough while they're made to do awful things strikes a chord with quite a few sexual assault victims. It doesn't make the show wrong or bad, and I don't hold it against the show. But now there's a content warning and I'm happy that there is for other people that go into it like I did.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

On a more direct note, trigger warnings are not nor were they ever meant to replace therapy post trauma. It is not about isolating yourself from possible triggers. It's specifically meant to be an information tool so you can make informed decisions about when and what kind of media you're going to consume in the moment. This is especially handy *during* treatment phases where you will have up days and down days more frequently as you're digging into sensitive topics.

The problem highlighted by the article is not trigger warnings, it's that our country has absolutely ****** mental healthcare and a lot of people, particularly low income people, can't afford it so a lot of trauma goes unaddressed, making triggers worse.
The solution to which is definitely not removing trigger warnings, but providing inexpensive Health Care access.

But even then, very few people 100% get past traumatic events. I am a child molestation survivor and I have been 'triggered' by media exactly once since I was a kid. I didn't get mad at the media or wanted it to be taken down. But I did think a content warning was a good idea. So did the creators, because after it was brought to their attention (not by me) they decided to include one.

If anyone thinks that's 'shrill outraged sjw infringing muh free speech' then those people really aren't worth my, or anyone's time.

Then why didn't the subject of trigger warnings ever come up in my therapy if it is a tried and true theraputic tool?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then why didn't the subject of trigger warnings ever come up in my therapy if it is a tried and true theraputic tool?

How long ago was your therapy and who was providing it? It didn't come up in mine either because my therapy was before the term was coined for lay usage, and my counselor at the time was fairly older and more traditionalist.

Besides, while therapy is where you're supposed to address the object of your trauma head on, any good therapists will have strict communication with you about how far you can go into your trauma at that moment, and warn you when you might not be ready to get to certain levels of addressing said trauma.
This is *makes a hand flourish* a trigger warning.

 

[Enoch07]

The problem highlighted by the article is not trigger warnings, it's that our country has absolutely ****** mental healthcare and a lot of people, particularly low income people, can't afford it so a lot of trauma goes unaddressed, making triggers worse.
The solution to which is definitely not removing trigger warnings, but providing inexpensive Health Care access.

Nobody is talking about taking away actual useful trigger warnings.

Just the ones that are abused.

If anyone thinks that's 'shrill outraged sjw infringing muh free speech' then those people really aren't worth my, or anyone's time.

I don't think that. I think you are genuinely worried about people with real mental health problems.

But like I said, this is about people that abuse trigger warnings for personal or political gain.

 

[Enoch07]

An Op-ed that sounds like aforementioned dick who hates being told he's being a dick.

Woah chill pill needed! Calm yourself!

The media I mentioned in the last post was, of all things, the pilot episode of Jessica Jones. And believe me, I was just as surprised as you probably are.

Again you are focusing on the real need for trigger warnings. Where as I and the study is about people abusing the system.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Again you are focusing on the real need for trigger warnings. Where as I and the study is about people abusing the system.

That's not at all what the study (which, by the way, has not been published to any peer review yet) is saying. It's trying to assess the value of trigger warnings(period) based off an incorrect notion of their function. Which is to give autonomy to a person to decide whether they are ready to engage with a media featuring potentially traumatic themes. It's definitely not meant to make people feel less anxious about their traumatic trigger. That is what therapy is for.

Nothing about 'abusing the system' is mentioned in the study.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

You realize that that was never what trigger warnings were actually used for, right?

 

[Enoch07]

You realize that that was never what trigger warnings were actually used for, right?

Unfortunately the vast majority have been abused.

Nothing about 'abusing the system' is mentioned in the study.

From my article:

“Trigger Warning: Empirical Evidence Ahead.” Yes, that title is trollish, but here is what they did: They had a few hundred participants read several passages, some of which were potentially disturbing. Half received no heads up before the passages, and half got a label ahead of the iffy ones that read: “TRIGGER WARNING: The passage you are about to read contains disturbing content and may trigger an anxiety response, especially in those who have a history of trauma.” The results suggested that trigger warnings could actually help generate anxiety, thus making them counterproductive. But there was a major limitation in that study: It didn’t focus on people who had experienced trauma."

Evidence suggest that trigger warnings increased anxiety even in people who haven't suffered any trauma. So he threw out that study then focused solely on people with trauma to get the results the rest do the article talked about.

To me that's evidence of people abusing the trigger warning system. They didn't have trauma but because the warning was there it increased their anxiety for no reason at all.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

You know only a little while ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly.

But now I think I have come to appreciate that it’s probably more nuanced.

Trigger warnings have technically existed for decades, in some form or another.
In Australia, there are special warnings before certain shows/movies for Aboriginal people to be forewarned about images of potentially deceased people appearing in a certain show or documentary. And honestly that’s been that way for as long as I can remember. But this isn’t a form of censorship, just a form of consumer information. Because it’s not like they blocked the broadcast of said documentaries or shows. Just had the warning and the option for people to change channels if they wished.

On TV, there are often viewer discretion warnings if a show or movie being shown has content that is mature. This is not done out of censorship but more to advise potential parents to shield the younglings from something rated MA15+ or R18+ or whatever.

Trigger warnings are a legitimately recognised thing in the mental health profession. Just because a movie or tv show or book or whatever the hell has a trigger warning does not necessarily mean you have to specifically avoid it. It’s just a way to let people know, if they are not at that point in their recovery, that they potentially should not be interacting with that particular presentation.

True some dbags did overuse the term and misuse it annoyingly.
Often encouraging cocoon like behaviour, when it was merely a consumer tool in the first place. That I will agree was not healthy. But a lot of the time, they were either young kids or extremists who were mocked by the others on their “team.”
I suspect all of those people in the old Snowflake memes from a few years ago have since grown up and are functional members of society. As will this new batch in a few more years, no doubt.
It’s just that unlike previous generations, their over enthusiastic attachments to their new fledgling college causes were captured forever on social media. Instead of everyone simply being too stoned to remember.

But I realised that that is exactly what the so called Anti SJWs are themselves. A bunch of echo chambers, reacting to obviously cherry picked extremist nonsense. They’re as bad as the “snowflakes” they supposedly fight against. And offended at every little criticism tossed their way. I left their toxicity and constant whining.

Truth be told, snowflakes are on both sides and I’m ashamed of myself for ever listening to either side with such a lack of skepticism on my part.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Unfortunately the vast majority have been abused.

In what way? Can you provide me with an example of a trigger warning being applied to points of view the reader may disagree with rather than trigger warning being applied to potentially traumatic subjects?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You know only a little while ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly.

But now I think I have come to appreciate that it’s probably more nuanced.

Hah! You think there is room for "NUANCE" in any discussion which touches on issues of the dreaded evil of SOCIAL JUSTICE? Nay! Verily, we must leave NO room for this "nuance" you speak of, and must speak only in derogatory rhetoric and disparage anyone who adopts and position different to our own!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

From my article:

“Trigger Warning: Empirical Evidence Ahead.” Yes, that title is trollish, but here is what they did: They had a few hundred participants read several passages, some of which were potentially disturbing. Half received no heads up before the passages, and half got a label ahead of the iffy ones that read: “TRIGGER WARNING: The passage you are about to read contains disturbing content and may trigger an anxiety response, especially in those who have a history of trauma.” The results suggested that trigger warnings could actually help generate anxiety, thus making them counterproductive. But there was a major limitation in that study: It didn’t focus on people who had experienced trauma."

Evidence suggest that trigger warnings increased anxiety even in people who haven't suffered any trauma. So he threw out that study then focused solely on people with trauma to get the results the rest do the article talked about.

To me that's evidence of people abusing the trigger warning system. They didn't have trauma but because the warning was there it increased their anxiety for no reason at all.

So... You think this is somehow people "cheating the system"? What are they cheating, exactly?

Isn't it more likely that the people just read the trigger warning, determined the material may contain graphic or off-putting details and decided not to read it for that reason?

 

[Curious George]

You know only a little while ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly.

But now I think I have come to appreciate that it’s probably more nuanced.

Trigger warnings have technically existed for decades, in some form or another.
In Australia, there are special warnings before certain shows/movies for Aboriginal people to be forewarned about images of potentially deceased people appearing in a certain show or documentary. And honestly that’s been that way for as long as I can remember. But this isn’t a form of censorship, just a form of consumer information. Because it’s not like they blocked the broadcast of said documentaries or shows. Just had the warning and the option for people to change channels if they wished.

On TV, there are often viewer discretion warnings if a show or movie being shown has content that is mature. This is not done out of censorship but more to advise potential parents to shield the younglings from something rated MA15+ or R18+ or whatever.

Trigger warnings are a legitimately recognised thing in the mental health profession. Just because a movie or tv show or book or whatever the hell has a trigger warning does not necessarily mean you have to specifically avoid it. It’s just a way to let people know, if they are not at that point in their recovery, that they potentially should not be interacting with that particular presentation.

True some dbags did overuse the term and misuse it annoyingly.
Often encouraging cocoon like behaviour, when it was merely a consumer tool in the first place. That I will agree was not healthy. But a lot of the time, they were either young kids or extremists who were mocked by the others on their “team.”
I suspect all of those people in the old Snowflake memes from a few years ago have since grown up and are functional members of society. As will this new batch in a few more years, no doubt.
It’s just that unlike previous generations, their over enthusiastic attachments to their new fledgling college causes were captured forever on social media. Instead of everyone simply being too stoned to remember.

But I realised that that is exactly what the so called Anti SJWs are themselves. A bunch of echo chambers, reacting to obviously cherry picked extremist nonsense. They’re as bad as the “snowflakes” they supposedly fight against. And offended at every little criticism tossed their way. I left their toxicity and constant whining.

Truth be told, snowflakes are on both sides and I’m ashamed of myself for ever listening to either side with such a lack of skepticism on my part.

Can I start the slow clap now?

I am impressed. If only this could be pinned, so it would better receive the frubal showers it deserves.

 

[Enoch07]

But now I think I have come to appreciate that it’s probably more nuanced.

If you never viewed it as nuanced you missed the point from the get go.

Isn't it more likely that the people just read the trigger warning, determined the material may contain graphic or off-putting details and decided not to read it for that reason?

Ah but do you get anxiety for seeing a sign on the lawn warning about fireworks usage near a vets house? I doubt it. To me its evidence of abuse. People see its something they can take advantage of then do. Of course this study isn't complete as the author admits.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ah but do you get anxiety for seeing a sign on the lawn warning about fireworks usage near a vets house? I doubt it.

... What does that have to do with anything?

To me its evidence of abuse.

Why? In what way? What is being abused?

People see its something they can take advantage of then do.

In what way are they "taking advantage" of it? Give me an example.

 

[SomeRandom]

If you never viewed it as nuanced you missed the point from the get go.

Oh I did. But hey we all make mistakes, right? I was angry and stupid and young.

 

[SomeRandom]

Can I start the slow clap now?

I am impressed. If only this could be pinned, so it would better receive the frubal showers it deserves.

Awww shucks

 

[Enoch07]

What does that have to do with anything?

Why? In what way? What is being abused?

In what way are they "taking advantage" of it? Give me an example.

Its obvious you can't keep up. Not gonna spoon feed you. Go back and read previous post or leave the thread.

 

[Enoch07]

Oh I did. But hey we all make mistakes, right? I was angry and stupid and young.

Well that's on you. But not everyone made the same mistakes as you.