|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Trigger Warnings
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Speaking personally, but with some board responsibility - if we're tip-toeing around a potential legal minefield where one false move could sink the Ship permanently, damn right it's on everybody to be circumspect.
And nothing whatsoever about a reluctance to 'cause offence'.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I personally find the fascination with and need to churn over other peoples problems - troubling and unnecessary. I accept that there are "free speech" precedents for doing so, but again view these as being largely something of an abuse of the principle. The argument that this non-reporting creates the capacity for an abuse of power by someone is actually complete rubbish if the ability to report if necessary remains unrestrained. And the abilty to report IS increasingly restrained by laws designed to prevent this powerr of reporting and defamation being abused.
Abuse of free speech = loss of free speech in all but travesty, so you can be assured that we are ulikely to see a swift demise of the porn industry. Or of tabloid hounding of celebrities just because this can be done with impunity. Just pray that you never become a celebrity in the eyes of the tabloid press.
Then, when something really serious is reported, it loses its power to convey real meaning because we see it every day, and are numbed by the constinous stream of innuendo and social violence that occurs in the media. Furthermore, if Shipmates feel the need to poke into other peoples lives and dissect and criticise them, I'd ask is there anyone here who would relish some of their own dodgier life decisions being given the same level of scrutiny and airing? What's good for the goose is also good for the less well known gander. Unless of course, all this talk of being in an "equal" society (I assume that beyond the gender and sexuality strereotypes that simply means equality of respect as a human being) is actually just lip service.
So no - I don't have a lot of sympathy for the principle you're attempting to defend. The possibility to pursue any unnecessary dissections of other people's lives remains an individual decision which I guess you could call a "right". Tough again on "Rights" I would say that there is insufficient weight given to the responsibilities that come with rights. If you look at the linguistics of "rights", and "power" you'll see there is a very close connection. Which taken a tiny bit further implies that an abuse of rights is ergo an abuse of power. Hey - that sounds like we've somehow gone a full circle. What happened?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday, your concerns about trigger warnings in general are valid but Tulfes' disclaimer doesn't seem like a trigger warning to me and I don't see much evidence of them taking over the Ship. If anything, they seem to have fallen out of fashion a bit.
Your link is subscriber-only, but here's a Guardian article on their overuse. The author argues that trigger warnings served a useful purpose in their original context - for discussing sexual abuse on feminist blogs - because a significant number of their readers might have experienced it. However, they now are used to cover:
quote:
misogyny, the death penalty, calories in a food item, terrorism, drunk driving, how much a person weighs, racism, gun violence, Stand Your Ground laws, drones, homophobia, PTSD, slavery, victim-blaming, abuse, swearing, child abuse, self-injury, suicide, talk of drug use, descriptions of medical procedures, corpses, skulls, skeletons, needles, discussion of "isms," neuroatypical shaming, slurs (including "stupid" or "dumb"), kidnapping, dental trauma, discussions of sex (even consensual), death or dying, spiders, insects, snakes, vomit, pregnancy, childbirth, blood, scarification, Nazi paraphernalia, slimy things, holes and "anything that might inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD".
[...]
generalized trigger warnings aren't so much about helping people with PTSD as they are about a certain kind of performative feminism: they're a low-stakes way to use the right language to identify yourself as conscious of social justice issues.
I think the latter is a fair criticism. I've seen "Trigger warning: colonialism" a few times, but never "contains scenes of bomb disposal".
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the principle you're attempting to defend.
The principle I am trying to defend is not the right to churn over other people's problems, but the freedom to raise issues which could, conceivably, upset someone because of their personal connection with them.
For example, my father was an alcoholic, and I have some unhappy memories connected with that fact, but I would hate to think that anyone would think twice about raising the subject of alcoholism, or feel the need to put a warning at the beginning of a post about alcoholism on the grounds that it might distress someone.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Your link is subscriber-only,
D'oh! Sorry.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Like most people, I have my share of hangups. When something I am reading disturbs me, I stop reading immediately. However, I would hate to have other people deprived of the opportunity to read stuff that I can't handle.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Speaking personally, but with some board responsibility - if we're tip-toeing around a potential legal minefield where one false move could sink the Ship permanently, damn right it's on everybody to be circumspect.
And nothing whatsoever about a reluctance to 'cause offence'.
Here is a Ship-based example of a host-inserted trigger warning. I'm not convinced the Ship would suffer any legal consequences for linking to an archival photo from the first half of the twentieth century.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
It's like the famous Voltaire quote: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right to look good in debates".
Most of us self-censor anyway. I don't know if anyone has a sinister agenda here, I doubt it. No-one's going to deliberately libel someone unless they want revenge on someone. And the best revenge (they say) is to live life as best you can. They do say that, you know? Obviously my enemies disagree. But they're just pedants and must be silenced.
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
However if you want to discuss ship business or hostly actions, that should be done in the Styx.
Duly noted.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
I don't see how it can be a bad thing to act with consideration for other people's feelings. If that includes warning them that (as the TV news reports say) they may find some scenes distressing, then I'll do it.
There's a world of difference between what we're free to do and what is good to do.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Funny this thread should appear just now, as only this afternoon I read in Time magazine their "ten questions" final word thing in this issue.... the article that is on the last page of the magazine is always ten questions with someone of note. This time it was author Judy Blume, and one of the questions was about trigger warnings. She had never heard of them and when it was explained to her what they were in the context of college education what they were, she was appalled and quite opposed to them. Sadly I doubt it's on line, but if anyone can get hold of this latest issue of Time I recomend it to you.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I do know the libel/slander laws are different in Britian than the United States. The Duggar thread shows it. While it was widely reported in the US, our British hosts were more circumspect. I also have posted somethings that are widely reported in the US but are almost instantly locked up here.
I have learned that isince this is a British based site, we should follow the British rules, whether or not we agree with them.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I do know the libel/slander laws are different in Britian than the United States. The Duggar thread shows it. While it was widely reported in the US, our British hosts were more circumspect. I also have posted somethings that are widely reported in the US but are almost instantly locked up here.
I have learned that isince this is a British based site, we should follow the British rules, whether or not we agree with them.
Let me be clear that I have, and had, no objections whatsoever to warnings from the Hostocracy about the legal implications of possible comments on the Duggar case.
They were not trigger warnings at all, but prudential and necessary directions.
What I was referring to was a possible trigger warning (which I might have misinterpreted as such)in the OP, about possible hurt to people's feelings.
Moreover, I was not suggesting that such trigger warnings are common on the Ship - they are in fact very rare - but suggesting that if Shippies emulated the current craze in some Western universities, and started using them onboard, this would not be a Good Thing.
[ 03. June 2015, 04:41: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I don't see how it can be a bad thing to act with consideration for other people's feelings. If that includes warning them that (as the TV news reports say) they may find some scenes distressing, then I'll do it.
There's a world of difference between what we're free to do and what is good to do.
t
True, but it is also true that, as Hiro's Leap Guardian quote demonstrates, the use of trigger warnings can be be carried to ludicrous extremes which endanger not only the principle of free speech, but even common or garden variety communication.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What's wrong with trigger warnings? People who might have problems with an issue can skirt the post, and people who don't can read it. I fail to see why this is bad.
And for God's sake, what does it have to do with free speech? Nobody's right to say something is being abridged by saying, "This is about dead children" at the beginning of a post that talks about dead children. It just allows people with fresh grief or whatever to skip down. Nobody's free speech is abridged at all. Not even close. Nothing, but nothing, about that even whispers anything about an abridgment of free speech.
The very idea of linking the two is ludicrous.
[ 03. June 2015, 04:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Trigger warnings are a courtesy to those people who have experienced severe trauma in the past to reduce the frequency of reliving those traumatic memories.
The only problem that can arise is when people who have not had these experiences start demanding trigger warnings from others to avoid ever being shocked by something they read. My read of the complaints about university education is that the demands (to some extent) fall into this category.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's wrong with trigger warnings? People who might have problems with an issue can skirt the post, and people who don't can read it. I fail to see why this is bad.
And for God's sake, what does it have to do with free speech? Nobody's right to say something is being abridged by saying, "This is about dead children" at the beginning of a post that talks about dead children. It just allows people with fresh grief or whatever to skip down. Nobody's free speech is abridged at all. Not even close. Nothing, but nothing, about that even whispers anything about an abridgment of free speech.
The very idea of linking the two is ludicrous.
You might be right.
I wish I shared your sunny optimism.
My Eeyorish outlook suspects that if there is room to push something to an ideological extreme, someone will try it, with the result that “Warning! Pictures of dead children” can become “No publication of pictures of dead children, ever, no matter what their relevance, because someone might accidentally see them, despite warnings, and be upset”.
Thin slippery ends of slopey wedges are by no means inevitable, but they do happen, and need to be reckoned with.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Trigger Warnings are in fact the very opposite of shutting down discussion for fear of triggering someone.
They are explicitly a message that you, as an individual reader, might be troubled by this, but now that we've alerted you to the risk it's your individual responsibility to avoid the risk. We're not going to completely eliminate the risk for you by collectively avoiding it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Trigger warnings are a courtesy to those people who have experienced severe trauma in the past to reduce the frequency of reliving those traumatic memories.
The problem - I have have been reliably informed - is not (for traumatised combatants) to avoid war films or articles about war, but cars backfiring, balloons popping, or particular varieties of flower that were growing on the battlefield at the time. I know folk who dread the 5th of November.
And the point is made that an academic course is no substitute for proper counselling and therapy.
I suspect there is a middle ground between "I am forcing you to look at pictures of dead babies" and "society will ensure that nothing will ever trouble you again".
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's fairly standard on at least some of our television networks to have a warning that a program about indigenous people may have images of people who've died (this actually seems to mean it DOES have such images, but the warning is framed to say that it might).
This is done because in some indigenous cultures, you do not mention the dead by their name (or they have a different name when dead) and there are very strict rules about any kind of reference to the deceased.
I've yet to see even a hint of a suggestion that this should lead to not ever having documentaries that show indigenous people who've died, or not reporting the deaths of prominent indigenous people. It's a note as to content to warn those who need to be warned, but it doesn't control the content for the rest of us.
[ 03. June 2015, 10:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
For what it's worth, my "intruding" reference in the OP on the Duggar thread wasn't meant to be a trigger warning. Re-reading that part of the OP, I think the "intruding" reference was inappropriate and perhaps could be construed as introducing a flippant edge to a serious subject. Please accept my apologies for the possibly inappropriate use of language when opening such a sensitive topic.
I think that the Duggar thread has been well moderated and has led to a very interesting discussion on the general issues beyond the Duggar case.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I generally do not support trigger warnings. Adults need to have some ability to regulate their responses and not to depend on others to help them. The topic or the item, whether in video media or discussion should be sufficient.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I think the average human being would have a fairly predictable response to ( using a recent example) a mid- shot of the hanged, burned corpse of a dead man. Perhaps "trigger warning" is loaded-- particularly in that it implies only very fragile people would be bothered by such images-- but content warning is very helpful and (IMO) common courtesy.
Also, I don't have a desk job, but I would imagine the average employer would not appreciate showing a client around the office and walking past someone's desk just at that moment they unwittingly open a graphic image of dead babies. Not everyone works at Dark Horse.
I really don't understand the line of reasoning that hosts requesting such warning is coddling. It seems like common sense to me.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
My Eeyorish outlook suspects that if there is room to push something to an ideological extreme, someone will try it, with the result that “Warning! Pictures of dead children” can become “No publication of pictures of dead children, ever, no matter what their relevance, because someone might accidentally see them, despite warnings, and be upset”.
Thin slippery ends of slopey wedges are by no means inevitable, but they do happen, and need to be reckoned with.
If there is going to be a push to avoid touchy subjects, it will come with or without trigger warnings. It's not like the net nannies are going to say, "These subjects can be distressing. Should we ban them or not? Oh, look! There is such a thing as a trigger warning. We should ban them."
Rather, I would think that trigger warnings are protective against just this thing happening. "Should we ban them? No need, because there are trigger warnings, so people who want or need to avoid them are able to see the warning and steer around them."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I also agree with Kelly. Perhaps it's because the term 'trigger warning' is quite a new thing that people react negatively to it, but the underlying idea has always been around. If you know someone has, say, recently lost someone to suicide, or has recently been raped, then when you're chatting in a group with that person present, you'll avoid having a conversation about suicide or rape - and might steer the conversation away from it if someone who didn't know started talking about it. That's just common kindness. And extending that further, if you're in a group of people you don't know, you have no idea what may have been going on in their lives, so you'd generally be more careful with potentially emotive topics. On an online forum, with potentially hundreds of people you don't know reading, it's a bit different. People are not all gathered together physically. They can choose to read or not, to take part or not. So that's where a trigger warning comes in useful.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This discussion does indicate a problem on the reporting or initiating side, in addition to the receptive side of information. Things that never would have been shown and topics never discussed now are. Dead bodies, executions, body parts, etc in pictures - there seems to be little restraint. The media and individual promotion of such material at most takes a device click or gadget touch or two.
But this is the society/civilization we're part of. How on earth do we, for example, deal with the reality of war or violence if we don't view it or know about? We should be responsive in an upsetting way to a good proportion of it. So we might make a change. I am offended that we do not see more war footage. We saw this in the Vietnam days, and it turned the world against the ill-advised organized violence such that the war stopped. But maybe that's the point.
Has anyone seen adverts for or otherwise been in contact with the current crop of realistic shoot and kill video games, blood splattering etc.? I suppose the trigger warnings at the end of adverts on TV are enough? Which simply briefly announce "rated M for mature" of other such helpfulness.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
( crosspost)
I guess, like I said, the big problem I have with the word " trigger" is that it implies that you have to had gone through some horrific trauma to have an emotional response to something.
One day, while browsing a bookstore, I saw " The Rape of Nanking" sitting on a shelf, and I opened it randomly. I will spare you the description, but suffice it to say I opened to a photograph of a nine year old girl, and to this day I wish I hadn't opened that book.
I don't think a person has to have been previously traumatized to have a profound emotional response to that image. In fact, I am not sure I would want to meet the person who wouldn't.
And if I came across a jpeg of that photo, and linked to it here without a content warning, and then chided anyone afterward with. "you choose your own feelings, therefore if you are offended or repulsed that is your choice." Or "an emotionally mature adult should be able to govern their response to this image"-- in my assesment, I definitely would be the problem in the situation.
[ 03. June 2015, 18:24: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Kelly, I think the biggest difference is probably levels. I am quite happy to take your word on it that almost anyone decent would be horrified by the picture you saw. On the other hand, I think many people are not completely shaken up for hours after reading a moderately detailed headline about dead children. I'm basically assuming this because I continue to see such headlines. I do tend to find such headlines mess up my emotions for hours if I'm not careful. On the other hand, I still function, and I gather some people would find the same trigger completely destroys them.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
OK, the last several posts seemed to have revolved around images. That's where I was feeling the " common sense" disconnect, because, come on.
You are saying that it is respectful to go one step further and consider that even some textual references might bother some people more than others, and I agree. A while back we were discussing a situation that prompted me to link to an article on war crimes against women. While the details were basic rather than lurid, it was still upsetting enough, and I did post a warning in the hyperlink giving users an idea of what was covered. I felt the information was important, but also felt the thread participants should at least get a heads up to brace themselves if they were going to proceed.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We do have some sociological or social psychological changes over time (not sure I have the right terms for this). We developed a bit of a trend toward considering more experiences than were in the past as meritting the labels 'victim' and 'survivor'. The second aspect I think is the expansion of the concept of trauma. Is it trauma to read something, view something on a screen? At least I might think to call it 'second hand' or vicarious. Not sure.
The book Kelly refers to: where's the line between being startled or offended and being traumatised by it? It is certainly possible to have some trauma-like responses to media, but I think calling them that degrades or cheapens the actual experience of the thing. I've had many such responses, the one recently discussed with me is the execution scene in Dead Man Walking as Sean Penn is walked to the injection table and killed by the prison staff. It troubled my sleep for a few day and I think it should have. Perhaps I should have had a trigger warning before viewing?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I agree with Kelly Alves that you can find viewing something very problematic even if you've never had a real life trauma. I guess I may not be an emotionally mature adult, but if so there isn't much I can do about it.
I can't handle much by way of violence or fright. I would never go to see an 18 certificate film even though I am middle aged. I remember going with my friend to see Insomnia with Robin Williams at the cinema and I had to leave part way through because it was too frightening, and that was only a 15 certificate.
Maybe, as no prophet says, I should be able to control my reaction, but I cannot. Of course other people should not be limited by my feebleness, but I look out for and am grateful for any indications of what content is like. Anything labelled not safe for work I would never look at.
Sadly, in my case it's not about the reaction of a decent person, as graphic fictional violence disturbs me far more than prosaic accounts of terrible reality.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I agree with Kelly Alves that you can find viewing something very problematic even if you've never had a real life trauma. I guess I may not be an emotionally mature adult, but if so there isn't much I can do about it.
At the risk of lowering no prophet, etc's opinion of me, yes, viewing that photo was fucking well traumatic for me. It didn't just "kind of trouble me" Even now just thinking about it makes me sick. Usually I am appreciative of gaining information that gives me more insight on a situation, but in this case, every time I think of that, I think, "Gee if I had read something regarding this incident I would be just as well informed, and I wouldn't have this image of that poor little girl tattooed in my brain."
And I wouldn't think less of anybody-- no matter what kind of badass they professed to be-- if they preferred avoiding that experience.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
At the risk of lowering no prophet, etc's opinion of me, yes, viewing that photo was fucking well traumatic for me. It didn't just "kind of trouble me" Even now just thinking about it makes me sick.
I understand that it upset you (and I very much think certain images should upset people because they are things that happen in the world that shouldn't happen to anyone ever). But when you saw the picture, did you get an adrenaline rush, did your body tense up in a fight-or-flight response? Did you try to act normal and tell yourself that it's ok, you're not in any actual danger, it was just a picture in a book, take deep breaths, it'll be fine, but still wind up collapsed in a ball on the floor crying and rocking back and forth with a staff member or police officer asking what's wrong and what they can do to help you? When you say thinking about it makes you sick, are you literally throwing up?
That's the sort of thing that happens to me when I'm triggered. It's not the same as having a very strong emotional reaction to something that frankly should evoke strong emotions.
The only time I think a trigger warning is appropriate is if you have your hand on a gun and are telling me that unless I follow your next instructions exactly you are going to pull the trigger.
I can understand a certain number of content notes; even in my day course elective courses would note if the texts contained graphic violence.
My problem with the debate about trigger warnings as it's being held with regard to university settings is that it too often strikes me as a way of shutting down debate of certain topics. In my experience, it has frequently been a way the wealthy and privileged avoid confronting the pain or even emotional discomfort caused by a system that benefits them at the expense of exploiting others (I'm not accusing you of doing that, just trying to explain why the debate provokes such strong emotion in some people).
Sometimes, as much as our job as Christians is to comfort the afflicted, it is also to afflict the comfortable. To show them the consequences of their actions so they're more likely to work with us in changing the system.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I generally do not support trigger warnings. Adults need to have some ability to regulate their responses and not to depend on others to help them. The topic or the item, whether in video media or discussion should be sufficient.
Yeah, we're not all made out of old bolts like you. Some of us like it when we're told what the content is before we see it in full. Try a little empathy.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
<snip a whole load of belittling Kelly's emotional response to an explicit image of violence>
The only time I think a trigger warning is appropriate is if you have your hand on a gun and are telling me that unless I follow your next instructions exactly you are going to pull the trigger.
This is just facetious equivocation around the meaning of the word 'trigger'. You clearly know what's really meant, and actual guns didn't enter into this until you mentioned them.
How about acknowledging that a situation doesn't have to be literally life and death in order to have profound reaction and produce genuine emotional suffering? How about choosing to spare someone else's feelings?
quote:
Sometimes, as much as our job as Christians is to comfort the afflicted, it is also to afflict the comfortable. To show them the consequences of their actions so they're more likely to work with us in changing the system.
That is the most staggering misapplication of that phrase I've ever seen. The whole point about trigger warnings is to avoid afflicting the already uncomfortable any further.
Seriously, what's wrong with being proactively compassionate?
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yeah, I don't see it being extra Christian of me to treat a civil conversation like some sort of endurance test my fellow participants need to pass .
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
How about acknowledging that a situation doesn't have to be literally life and death in order to have profound reaction and produce genuine emotional suffering?
Did you read what I wrote? What further acknowledgment do you want?
quote:
How about choosing to spare someone else's feelings?
Depends on the person and how much of a delicate little snowflake they are.
quote:
quote:
Sometimes, as much as our job as Christians is to comfort the afflicted, it is also to afflict the comfortable. To show them the consequences of their actions so they're more likely to work with us in changing the system.
That is the most staggering misapplication of that phrase I've ever seen. The whole point about trigger warnings is to avoid afflicting the already uncomfortable any further.
I was specifically addressing the trigger warning debate on college campuses in the US. It is manifestly not about avoiding afflicting the already uncomfortable any further.
quote:
Seriously, what's wrong with being proactively compassionate?
People are dying. In the streets around me. Every day. You want to tell me I can't discuss the actual problems in order to try to find actual solutions because it upsets your precious widdle princess? Stay the fuck out of my class, that's why the course description mentions that the course material includes graphic violent content. (And WTF is wrong with you that you thought you could take a course on the Holocaust and not encounter anything that might upset you?) Etc.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Just to be clear, no-one has to satisfy me in any way, and I respect the diversity of opinion on this. Without going into too much personal detail, I assure you that I understand trauma and violence in various forms from personal experience and within 3 generations of family members.
I am more into resilience than nearly anything else. Not devil-may-care or tough guy cruft. But things that allow us to move about the world and to be okay with our pasts and what happens today. Positive psychology.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
It's not that I don't agree with you, but what has positive psychology got to do with a visceral reaction to an image a person has only just seen?
I am not engaging with saysay, as she is showing that she expects a great deal of attention to and tolerance of her own clearly very emotional reactions while reserving the right to dismiss other's, and I refuse to play that game.
Although I'm sure that it is a huge (probably unpleasant) shock to Teuf that I am his princess. Seriously, that rated a content warning.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I think the real trouble with so-called trigger warnings is this: The place where I taught a course a littler while ago had these plastered all over the place re: assigned student readings.
So here's what happens: relatively inexperienced students see something like "trigger warning: contains such-and-such material."
Younger folks with little experience do not know and can't predict how they might react to the material. They're also greedily curious. They want to read or see what they're being warned about. They ask their instructor what they should do, and the instructor hasn't the least clue what to tell them.
I mean, when the Interwebz offer me opportunities to watch beheadings (for example), I don't. I have some life experience, and I know myself fairly well. I'm pretty sure I'll regret watching something like that, just as Kelly regrets opening that book. I am not interested in discovering how it might affect me, or in watching someone's "beheading technique," or in confronting myself with stark realities about people willing and able to carry out such acts.
Despite all the above, there is a faint urge to do so. I'm curious. I'm tempted.
And that, I think, is exactly the problem with trigger warnings, at least in the college setting, particularly with people too inexperienced and too un-self-aware to be able to make decent decisions about what to do, aside from the fact that there are some who'll simply use this as an excuse to avoid reading / viewing anything at all.
Further, I think there's an enormous difference between printed words and printed images. I'm pretty sure verbiage passes through different brain centers than images do, and get processed differently.
And I'm with those who dislike the term "trigger warning."
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If it's college students, they're adults, and if someone has the decency/kindness to warn them that something might be very upsetting, nobody needs to go any further with responsibility to them (for example, by actually removing the material altogether). Yes, there's a perversity that urges people on to look at what they rationally know is probably not good for them. Yes, college students can be lacking in self-awareness. But you can't hold their hands forever. As adults, it's time for them to develop that self-awareness. If they do it by making a few painful mistakes (particularly by rushing past someone's kindly meant warning), well, sucks to be immature, doesn't it?
Me, I appreciate content notes/trigger warnings/heads ups or whatever you want to call them, so I don't happen upon deeply disturbing crap all unprepared. I consider it a kindness. I'm not going to go suing somebody if they fail to provide such a warning, but depending on the context, my opinion of them may plummet.
It's like warning someone they're about to step in dog shit, isn't it? Not a legal responsibility, but we'd take it so very kindly of you.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That seems reasonable to me, LC.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Nicely walked up the middle LC.
But I want to be a princess too! Pleease!
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am not engaging with saysay, as she is showing that she expects a great deal of attention to and tolerance of her own clearly very emotional reactions while reserving the right to dismiss other's, and I refuse to play that game.
Can you read? I don't want attention, but that's what I get when I don't act the way the Powers That Be want me to act and think I should be able to act.
I didn't dismiss others' emotional reactions, I just drew a distinction between a mental illness and the normal emotional reaction of people confronted with really bad shit.
quote:
Although I'm sure that it is a huge (probably unpleasant) shock to Teuf that I am his princess. Seriously, that rated a content warning.
Nice, up the ante, narcissist.
QED for a discussion of trigger warnings, which will likely soon be a discussion of content warnings, and involve lawsuits and large sums of money transferred among the super-rich.
After thoughtcrimes come feelingscrimes, and after that, death or mass murder.
Wait, is that the SWAT team coming to kill me for making threats instead of making reality-based predictions?
So be it.
Don't engage. I'm sure some people will survive this war.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
