Thread: Trigger Warnings Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029183
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
In the OP of the Duggar thread, Tulfes begins with "I hope that this post is not viewed as intruding on private grief".
I am not sure whether the comment is a reference to the distress within the Duggar family, or a warning to Shipmates who might find the content of the post upsetting.
If the latter,I am concerned at the possibilty of our developing a reluctance on the Ship to raise or discuss issues on the offchance that they might offend someone because of their individual circumstances.
Obviously it is inappropriate to deliberately raise a topic with the intention of hurting someone, and it is appropriate to apologise if we do so inadvertently, but it would be a pity if the tremendous range of subjects and opinions on the Ship were constricted by a perception that we need to tiptoe around dangerous areas, or flag every remotely possible source of discomfort.
This article by Frank Furedi deals with the controversy over such a tendency in tertiary educaton.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.theaustral ian.com.au/opinion/trigger-warnings-the-latest-attack-on-ideas-at-university/story-e6frg6zo-1227375135514&memtype=anonymous
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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'.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
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?
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
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".
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Your link is subscriber-only,
D'oh! Sorry.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
This feels more like a worry than something I actually see. For instance, I see repeated discussion about how our culture is being namby pamby* and not discussing real issues because we're so anxious about feelings. But I also see a lot of discussion about real issues in multiple contexts. Is there any real evidence that we as a society, culture, or whatever are being too careful and not facing up to things because of people's pain.
*Not saying you are saying this Kaplan Corday, a general comment
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Croesus, I don't see how that trigger warning hampers discussion. Eutychus put it in, and the thread goes on. However if you want to discuss ship business or hostly actions, that should be done in the Styx. Let's keep the Purgatory discussion off the topic of whether the Ship hosts are stifling discussion. (Yes, I do like that irony, but I'll spoil it by reminding you that you're free to discuss it in the right place.)
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
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
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
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.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I prefer the term "content note" to "trigger warning" myself. Seems less loaded to me.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I think Kelly's post well summarizes where I am too. One additional question: To go slightly further, if someone has experienced something horrible and would rather avoid reminders, why is it unreasonable or coddling to say "I'd appreciate trigger warnings about X, but if you forget I do understand."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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."
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
( 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 ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
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.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Kelly, I'd say that example you give is ideal. You didn't feel you couldn't share it, but you did warn people. (And I think I remember that link. I thought it was hard to read but quite valuable.)
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
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.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
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
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
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
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
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 .
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
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.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That seems reasonable to me, LC.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Nicely walked up the middle LC.
But I want to be a princess too! Pleease!
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Nicely walked up the middle LC.
But I want to be a princess too! Pleease!
You can be my princess. Now I've got a princess and a cabana boy!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Nice, up the ante, narcissist.
Is this still Purgatory? I am confused.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
How about choosing to spare someone else's feelings?
Depends on the person and how much of a delicate little snowflake they are.
What if that's not your call? What if what YOU call a "delicate little snowflake" is someone who watched their mother being raped and then murdered? Why is it so fucking difficult to be compassionate toward other people without calling them ugly names like "delicate little snowflake"? What the fuck is that about?
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
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?
Nobody is talking about banning difficult subjects, but about providing kindly warnings to people who might be traumatized by them. Are you perchance on the wrong thread? Because you seem to be arguing against something that has not been presented here.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
exfuckingactly.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this still Purgatory? I am confused.
I certainly am judging by much of the last fifteen posts or so (and that includes yours, mousethief).
Do you all remember "attack the issue and not the person"? Good. Take the personal insults to Hell.
And help the hosts' blood pressure by counting to ten and calming down before posting.
/hosting
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Would that life were that simple.
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
It's only a matter of time before all universities require students to sign affidavits regarding their mental health before course commencement.
The result of that will be somewhat self-selecting.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
I love the way that the anti-warnings faction are always willing to weigh a possible future harm to an institution against the demonstrable present harm already being done to actual human beings.
There's also a high degree of unrealism about lawsuits here. The reason personal injury lawsuits are prevalent in the USA is that the USA hasn't got a public healthcare system worthy of the name. A nation that expects you to pay up front for the ambulance that takes you to hospital can expect its citizens to try everything possible to offload those costs. Now rightly or wrongly there's no ambulance for hurt feelings, and not much medical support for being upset. So the scale of possible damages, even if such a case were to be brought, would be minimal.
I also don't see how the possible threat leads you to be against warnings. Let's suppose for a moment that the threat is credible. Then issuing warnings is the correct thing to do to mitigate the risk and protect the academic establishment. By arguing against warnings, whilst also arguing that the threat is real, you're advocating that colleges should wilfully expose themselves to a threat of litigation which could be cheaply avoided.
Of course, you could be concern trolling in order to defend your own entrenched position.
What's your position on the current state of the academic publishing market?
t
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Of course, you could be concern trolling in order to defend your own entrenched position.
What's your position on the current state of the academic publishing market?
t
Teufelchen, I asked posters very recently to cool down. Accusing other people of trolling of any nature is unacceptable in Purgatory, and doubly so in view of my warning above.
Put your arguments in a less inflammatory manner, take them to Hell, or expect attention from an admin.
And for the avoidance of doubt, that applies to everyone else, too.
/hosting
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
This is far down the worries of the academics of my acquaintance, who are generally more concerned about the trend towards treating universities as businesses whose primary function is to get students lucrative jobs and whose secondary function is to provide research on the cheap to corporate sponsors (sorry, 'impact').
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I love the way that the anti-warnings faction are always willing to weigh a possible future harm to an institution
Not to an institution, but to what the institution ideally represents, ie free and open inquiry.
quote:
against the demonstrable present harm already being done to actual human beings.
Begging the question.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I love the way that the anti-warnings faction are always willing to weigh a possible future harm to an institution
Not to an institution, but to what the institution ideally represents, ie free and open inquiry.
I don't see how saying "this might upset some people" threatens that. And I don't find the argument about lawsuits convincing, not least because of the self-defeating nature of your argument that I outlined above.
quote:
quote:
against the demonstrable present harm already being done to actual human beings.
Begging the question.
People specifically reporting that they have suffered as a result of something is evidence that harm occurs. You speculating that a lawsuit might happen is not. I don't think I'm the one begging the question.
t
PS: Eutychus, sorry for overstepping the line.
[ 04. June 2015, 09:30: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
People specifically reporting that they have suffered as a result of something is evidence that harm occurs.
With respect, people specifically reporting that they have suffered as a result of something is evidence that people are reporting that they have suffered as a result of something.
Not that quantifiable harm has actually occurred.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Surely most of this has already been nailed, in this thread?
a) the trigger (ahem) for the OP didn't appear, to me, to be any kind of "trigger warning" in context; just an acknowledgement that the thread was going to touch in stuff most folk prefer not to dwell on, and that there was also a risk of a perception of ghoulishness which was not intended.
b) it should all have been wrapped with Kelly's observation that a lot of the heat-not-light is tied to the phrase "trigger warning" which can, in some of us, lead to a strong jerking knee of the "Oh FFS" eye-rolling variety because of a perceived mis-matched correlation between the drama of the phrase, and (some of) the context(s) to which it is being applied (or perhaps the discourses in which it is often used).
Using a less emotive phrase (advisory, content note, whatever) would move it from a (risk of) "look at the OTT little drama queens swooning and foaming" to "oh, that's a courteous thing to do".
Much like Lamb Chopped's dog shit example.
Or, in other words, trigger warnings are generally a good thing (although I'm sure we can all find examples that we consider ridiculous) but calling them trigger warnings is pretty unhelpful as it conjures up (for some) an image of folk who are desperately, desperately earnest about everything and totally out of touch with any sense of proportion or reality (as perceived by the perceiver) - and that's a perception of those offering the trigger warning, not those who may need it.
Trigger warnings can be triggering for old reactionaries.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
People specifically reporting that they have suffered as a result of something is evidence that harm occurs.
With respect, people specifically reporting that they have suffered as a result of something is evidence that people are reporting that they have suffered as a result of something.
Not that quantifiable harm has actually occurred.
No, it's not proof. But it is evidence. It's evidence that could conceivably be gainsaid by other, stronger evidence.
But it's often the best evidence we've got. I'm not in the business of calling trauma victims liars in order to prove a rhetorical point.
t
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Using a less emotive phrase (advisory, content note, whatever) would move it from a (risk of) "look at the OTT little drama queens swooning and foaming" to "oh, that's a courteous thing to do".
Much like Lamb Chopped's dog shit example.
Or, in other words, trigger warnings are generally a good thing (although I'm sure we can all find examples that we consider ridiculous) but calling them trigger warnings is pretty unhelpful as it conjures up (for some) an image of folk who are desperately, desperately earnest about everything and totally out of touch with any sense of proportion or reality (as perceived by the perceiver) - and that's a perception of those offering the trigger warning, not those who may need it.
I tend to use 'content note' myself. But expecting the more vulnerable group to modify their use of language, and expectations about the use of language, for the benefit of the less vulnerable group seems inherently unjust to me.
Discomfort about the phrase 'trigger warning' is not even in the same ballpark as the distress caused by many of the things we're contemplating providing warnings about.
t
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I'm not in the business of calling trauma victims liars in order to prove a rhetorical point.
Strangely enough, neither am I. However, as I and others eminently more qualified have said, those suffering from such overwhelming PTSD that the mere mention of Leda and the Swan in an academic context brings flashbacks, should be under the care of medical professionals and not undertaking university courses at that time.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I'm not in the business of calling trauma victims liars in order to prove a rhetorical point.
Strangely enough, neither am I. However, as I and others eminently more qualified have said, those suffering from such overwhelming PTSD that the mere mention of Leda and the Swan in an academic context brings flashbacks, should be under the care of medical professionals and not undertaking university courses at that time.
I didn't mean to imply that you were doing such a thing; apologies if I did.
In the context of academic studies of Greek myth, I think the intended purpose of a warning about (say) Leda and the Swan would be more 'brace yourself' than 'we think you can't handle this at all'.
But if people with severe mental health problems aren't supposed to do university work, I'd never have got either of my degrees. Arguing against measures which might make it more practical for them to do so, on the basis that an extreme situation might prevent them anyway, seems mistaken.
t
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
The thing with PTSD is that all sorts of things can be triggers, and you can't predict them. Little innocent things that are associated with the trauma in the person's mind - and the longer the trauma lasted, the more such triggers there will be. It would be impossible to put a trigger warning on everything that could potentially trigger. I wouldn't say people with PTSD shouldn't be studying - I studied literature when I had PTSD, and I loved it. Sure, things triggered me, but that was the case whatever I was doing. Triggers pop up all the time. The things that triggered me weren't things that you would expect, and would have been impossible to predict. I don't think trigger warnings would have been useful to me. But I can see the value of trigger warnings on emotive subjects - not so much because reading about them may trigger, but because when studying literature, you are then put into groups to talk about what you read, and being unexpectedly triggered in a group situation can be difficult.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen
Discomfort about the phrase 'trigger warning' is not even in the same ballpark as the distress caused by many of the things we're contemplating providing warnings about.
You seem to be misunderstanding which 'side' I'm on here. I'm essentially with you, and think Kaplan Corday's stance is alarmist and lacking in a bit of common decency.
However, ultimately, it's about constructive use of language. As is usual in life, there most likely needs to be movement on both sides. Those who suddenly become compassionless arses because the phrase "trigger warning" kicks off a knee-jerk need to wind it back in a bit and have a heart. Those who need and find trigger warnings helpful may need to take on board that keeping the warning but changing the label may lead to greater acceptance and so on.
And that's leaving aside a cynical observation that there's probably a third class of people who have a vested interest in perpetuating and extending emotive and dramatic language who don't necessarily act in the interests of either of the other two sets (although doubtless there's overlap).
There's also a difference between care and concern and walking on eggshells. And there's also a difference in personality and how people handle things that it probably behoves all of us to give more consideration to.
So many of these discussions feel like the bit in a film where the two folk who will end up together have a disagreement or misunderstanding, and veer off into ever more entrenched positions before it all comes good, when all they need to do is talk to each other and we could all go home an hour sooner ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
But if people with severe mental health problems aren't supposed to do university work, I'd never have got either of my degrees.
I've never argued otherwise. The mistake to make is to treat the course as therapy. Tutors are not therapists.
I've known colleagues who had a variety of mental health issues, which affected their ability to successfully complete their courses, who were treated with care and compassion by their relevant departments. Sometimes, their health deteriorated to such an extent that they had to take time out, change courses, resit a year or simply leave in order to get better. This pragmatic approach by both faculty and students seems to me to be best for all.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I think part of the problem that people have or don't have with "trigger warnings" is about nomenclature.
In general,I would agree with others upthread who have suggested that "Content Note: blah blah blah" might be a better term in most cases - like on news sites or on college papers. It's a kindness to those who might be struggling with something, and provides a handy summary for those who might not feel like reading something heavy that day who might like to come back to it without making people feel like they're being treated like children.
The context in which the phrase "Trigger Warning" seems to me to be useful is more specific, possibly best illustrated by example as it's more nebulous.
So, imagine in this example you're browsing a Pro-Ana (definition on wiki) website. Some threads or sections might talk about specifics of people's lightest weight and how they got there or specific details about cutting, and often these might be prefixed by a "Trigger Warning" for those who are trying to get better.
In that case, it's a context where a lot of the people may well have very similar triggers, and where some of them may not want to continue in the behaviours that might be triggered, while others are not at that point yet and are not actively seeking help or treatment. The nature of a lot of Pro Ana sites is that there is a mixture of those there, some seeking support but not wanting to "fix" their eating disorder, while others might be starting some type of treatment or counselling, but still looking for understanding. In that case, the specific meaning of the phrase "Trigger Warning" is a useful shorthand, and might meaningfully be used rather than a more formal-sounding "Content Note: _ " thing.
Does that make sense?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
So, imagine in this example you're browsing a Pro-Ana (definition on wiki) website.
I'm not sure this is a good example. Pro-ana sites are as toxic as fuck to anyone with anorexia or body-weight issues. Any trigger warnings you might find there will be about as useful as a packet of plasters taped to the side of a hand grenade.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
- but in the context of what those sites are and what they're about, it's where people are at, and the "This might be a bit triggery" or Trigger Warning" flags will be understood by pretty much all there, whereas on a website with a wider clientele some might not see the point of them and find it annoying to be "warned", but not so much to see a "content note".
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Almost every mental health organisation who's said anything about pro-ana sites has come down on the side of 'nope'. Yes, it might be 'where they're at', but 'where they're at' is not a good place, and trigger warnings there merely reinforce the illusion of control over an illness which, according to some, has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I tend to use 'content note' myself.
t
“Content note” I could live with.
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
The thing with PTSD is that all sorts of things can be triggers, and you can't predict them. Little innocent things that are associated with the trauma in the person's mind - and the longer the trauma lasted, the more such triggers there will be. It would be impossible to put a trigger warning on everything that could potentially trigger. I wouldn't say people with PTSD shouldn't be studying - I studied literature when I had PTSD, and I loved it. Sure, things triggered me, but that was the case whatever I was doing. Triggers pop up all the time. The things that triggered me weren't things that you would expect, and would have been impossible to predict. I don't think trigger warnings would have been useful to me. But I can see the value of trigger warnings on emotive subjects - not so much because reading about them may trigger, but because when studying literature, you are then put into groups to talk about what you read, and being unexpectedly triggered in a group situation can be difficult.
This.
Since I have experienced PTSD myself, and share the experience Fineline describes, I would favor a different approach to the general problem of (A) assigning readings which contain potentially disturbing material and (B) educating students by assigning such material.
Where I taught, students with issues that affect their learning would get Reasonable Accommodation Plans. PTSD is an actual disorder, and it can certainly affect someone’s learning. People likely to have their learning experience(s) derailed by something they might read can have this noted in the RAP. It is then the student’s responsibility to alert instructors about these issues.
This obviates the potential problems raised by plastering multiple warnings on multiple readings, which can (A) be abused by students intent on avoiding work – where I taught, there were plenty of these; (B) arousing the unhealthier forms of curiosity which could lead to people sort of self-inducing the experience Kelly had with the book, described above, and thereby making so-called trigger warnings do the exact opposite of what they were meant for; (C) leading well-meaning students to seek from instructors guidance the instructors are in no position to give.
In short, issue RAPs where needed; explain to affected students how to make appropriate use of these; and stop the general labeling of reading material with warnings.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
When I was in college sixty years ago, a history professor gave a detailed description of what was done to people who were drawn and quartered. I don't know what effect this had on any other student, but it disturbed me very much.
I couldn't stop thinking, not only of the people treated this way, but the people who did it. How could anyone stand to watch it?
I'm fairly sure the professor would never have said that if he had known the effect it would have on me, and possibly other students. I still haven't decided whether he was wrong to say that.
Moo
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm fairly sure the professor would never have said that if he had known the effect it would have on me, and possibly other students. I still haven't decided whether he was wrong to say that.
He probably knew what he was doing, had done it before to all his other classes, and would continue to do so until he retired. Whether he was doing it deliberately to squick people out, or doing it to bring home the point that this was a form of execution was also mass entertainment for the assembled crowd, is anyone's guess.
But unless you'd previously attended a public execution where mutilation was a major part of the sentence, I don't think the material can be described as 'triggering'.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
The thing with PTSD is that all sorts of things can be triggers, and you can't predict them. Little innocent things that are associated with the trauma in the person's mind - and the longer the trauma lasted, the more such triggers there will be. It would be impossible to put a trigger warning on everything that could potentially trigger. I wouldn't say people with PTSD shouldn't be studying - I studied literature when I had PTSD, and I loved it. Sure, things triggered me, but that was the case whatever I was doing. Triggers pop up all the time. The things that triggered me weren't things that you would expect, and would have been impossible to predict. I don't think trigger warnings would have been useful to me. But I can see the value of trigger warnings on emotive subjects - not so much because reading about them may trigger, but because when studying literature, you are then put into groups to talk about what you read, and being unexpectedly triggered in a group situation can be difficult.
The first time I ever saw the phrase " trigger warning" was on a tichtillomania forum, and I read it as a warning that reading about hair pulling incidents would tempt someone to drift into that behavior. So yeah, " trigger" means something a lot more clinical to me than "content that an average human being might find upsetting."
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The mistake to make is to treat the course as therapy. Tutors are not therapists.
I don't get the connection between trigger warnings and treating a course as therapy. Was there a suggestion that creating trigger warnings means tutors are acting as therapists, or encouraging students to treat the course as therapy?
Another example of trigger warnings, which perhaps more people can relate to, often occurs in health care related degrees and courses. When there is a lecture about bereavement or dying, then the students are warned beforehand that if they think they might find the lecture difficult they can talk to the tutor and arrange not to attend (they'd have to read the material separately). There is a general understanding (probably because most people experience the death of a loved one at some time) that if someone has experienced a recent bereavement, they are likely to find a talk about death difficult.
The term 'trigger warning' isn't used in this example, but that is essentially what it is - the talk may trigger painful emotions that are not yet processed. The warning doesn't mean the course is therapy, or that students see it as such, or that tutors are therapists. And no one sees people who opt out of attending the lecture due to a recent bereavement as 'delicate little snowflakes'. People tend to understand this sort of 'triggering'. Triggers due to PTSD are fairly similar, although often more complex, and long lasting. Brain and body are changed by it, so it is a physical reaction too.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I don't want to make the distinction between 'real' reactions and ... other sorts. Having been recently bereaved, I found listening to the tributes to Charles Kennedy surprisingly difficult, though not inexplicably so, given my circumstances. So I'm not going to tell anyone that their reaction to something within the normal bounds of human experience is to be treated lightly. Your example of medical training is a good one. All doctors need to know how to handle breaking bad news to patients and relatives, and when the course is scheduled can't take into account the life circumstances of all their students.
From what I've heard and read, much of the debate is happening in US universities over courses and content that, to be honest, are at least once removed from matters of life and death. This is the statement from the American Association of University Professors, and includes:
quote:
The classroom is not the appropriate venue to treat PTSD, which is a medical condition that requires serious medical treatment. Trigger warnings are an inadequate and diversionary response. Medical research suggests that triggers for individuals can be unpredictable, dependent on networks of association. So color, taste, smell, and sound may lead to flashbacks and panic attacks as often as the mention of actual forms of violence such as rape and war.
And later:
quote:
Instead, as with other disabilities, a student diagnosed with PTSD should, in advance, agree on a plan for treatment with the relevant health advisors who, in some cases, may want to alert teachers to the presence of a trauma victim in their classroom. The Americans with Disabilities Act contains recommendations for reasonable accommodation to be made on an individual basis. This should be done without affecting other students’ exposure to material that has educational value.
Which fits Porridge's response here.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
The classroom is not the appropriate venue to treat PTSD, which is a medical condition that requires serious medical treatment. Trigger warnings are an inadequate and diversionary response. Medical research suggests that triggers for individuals can be unpredictable, dependent on networks of association. So color, taste, smell, and sound may lead to flashbacks and panic attacks as often as the mention of actual forms of violence such as rape and war.
I definitely agree that triggers can't be predicted, and can be incredibly varied - that's what I said in an earlier post. I'm just not sure why giving trigger warnings is seen as treatment for PTSD. It would never occur to me to see a trigger warning as therapy. Surely it would be more accurate for lecturers to simply say that students can't possibly expect the warnings to cover every type of trigger, but that they will warn about specific emotive topics.
quote:
And later:
Instead, as with other disabilities, a student diagnosed with PTSD should, in advance, agree on a plan for treatment with the relevant health advisors who, in some cases, may want to alert teachers to the presence of a trauma victim in their classroom. The Americans with Disabilities Act contains recommendations for reasonable accommodation to be made on an individual basis. This should be done without affecting other students’ exposure to material that has educational value.
This also makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, I imagine a lot of traumatised people are not seeking support, may not even know they have PTSD, or may not want their condition/experience revealed to lecturers (for all kinds of reasons). Of course, they can't then expect individualised accommodation, but may appreciate general warnings about things like rape/death/suicide/violence. I'm not sure how that would affect other students' exposure to the material - unless it is a spoiler, I suppose. A trigger warning surely doesn't mean the book isn't studied. But it would be quite a lot of extra work for lecturers to think about which warnings need to be applied to which works, and it wouldn't be an exact science, even with specific criteria.
Personally, I'd think it would be more relevant with regard to seminars, rather than the actual reading - to warn that in a seminar, the topic being discussed is an emotive one. Maybe more applicable to health and social care than to literature, because literature seminars tend to be about a whole book, rather than a topic. But then, of course, even if you are covering a non-emotive topic, you never know what direction a discussion may take. So I can definitely see the wisdom in clarifying that trigger warnings are limited and cannot guarantee protection from triggers. I just don't see that as meaning that trigger warnings are being seen as therapy, or that they should never be used.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Part of my reaction above relates to things as discussed in this article
quote:
...students complained that he exposed them to ‘offensive’ texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain,” he says. “That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik...
I hold two adjunct academic appointments; the scariness of students and interns wanting to be warned or for certain things to be left out completely is a problem.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
That's ridiculous. On the other hand, is there any evidence that this is more a widespread problem than a panic by a few foolish university administrators who don't know how to support their own faculty?
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The first time I ever saw the phrase " trigger warning" was on a tichtillomania forum, and I read it as a warning that reading about hair pulling incidents would tempt someone to drift into that behavior. So yeah, " trigger" means something a lot more clinical to me than "content that an average human being might find upsetting."
Yep. This is also a great example of how trigger warnings can be very useful within a specialist community but not be reasonably expected outside it.
There are so many possible triggers for different types of problem. Common causes of PTSD include sexual violence, serious road accidents, mugging, robbery, prolonged violence, severe neglect, witnessing violent deaths and military combat. These aren't unusual events. I'm also pretty sure I know people who developed PTSD from serious bullying. Then there are all the (perfectly legitimate) non-PTSD difficulties people can face, from tichtillomania and addictions to bereavement and body-image issues.
Trigger warnings or contact notes can't reasonably cover all these. Personally I think it's fair for students to ask for a general warning about detailed scenes of rape, and probably extreme violence (e.g. graphic torture) too. Beyond that, I'm sceptical - books are packed with situations that people might find triggering.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Part of my reaction above relates to things as discussed in this article
quote:
...students complained that he exposed them to ‘offensive’ texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain,” he says. “That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik...
I hold two adjunct academic appointments; the scariness of students and interns wanting to be warned or for certain things to be left out completely is a problem.
Yes, it is definitely a problem if lecturers are losing their positions over it. The students can't hold the lecturers responsible for 'triggering' them - as has been pointed out several times, it is impossible to predict all triggers.
Does this necessarily mean that incorporating trigger warnings must necessarily be a problem though? What about if it comes with the disclaimer that lecturers can't possibly predict all triggers, and can't be held responsible for symptoms of PTSD from previous trauma, and that of course students must seek professional help for PTSD, but that out of courtesy lecturers will warn for certain obvious potentially-distressing things?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
That's ridiculous. On the other hand, is there any evidence that this is more a widespread problem than a panic by a few foolish university administrators who don't know how to support their own faculty?
Some. There seem to be a fair number of people who seem to believe that faculty and administrators have some magical ability to make campus a completely safe place in a dangerous world, and they're bringing lawsuits when things don't go their way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
You do have a point. There is a general comment worth making about "litigation avoidance mode", which is that it tends to be about avoiding litigation, not about avoiding a loss.
Suing someone does not mean that you'll win the suit, and in fact some suits are simply ridiculous and as a matter of law could be beaten quite easily.
However, it's actually very difficult to prevent people from starting litigation, even litigation without any merit. Courts have power to do something against a serial pest who keeps bringing baseless claims, but that's about it.
And the problem is this doesn't gel well with fears about being taken to court. For a lot of organisations, the fear doesn't end up being about losing a particular court case, it ends up being a general fear about having a court case.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Part of my reaction above relates to things as discussed in this article
A different kind of warning... that website is giving my copy of Internet Explorer heart attacks for some reason.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
And this has what to do with trigger warnings? If this happens it will happen with or without trigger warnings. If there is some tidal cultural shift that makes this more likely to happen now than it was in the first 700ish years of the existence of universities, then trigger warnings are a symptom, not an etiology.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
And this has what to do with trigger warnings?
The fact that there is now an assumption of a right to be warned, and of university authorities'
duty to provide that warning.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that such litigation has already been attempted.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When I was in college sixty years ago, a history professor gave a detailed description of what was done to people who were drawn and quartered. I don't know what effect this had on any other student, but it disturbed me very much.
I couldn't stop thinking, not only of the people treated this way, but the people who did it. How could anyone stand to watch it?
I'm fairly sure the professor would never have said that if he had known the effect it would have on me, and possibly other students. I still haven't decided whether he was wrong to say that.
Moo
That sort of thing is not uncommon amongst secondary history teachers, because it has a certain appeal to the (especially male) adolescent mentality, but I am surprised to hear of a tertiary lecturer doing it.
I tried to avoid it because it trivialises and debases the subject.
It is sometimes necessary to mention things such as torture, but not to pruriently sensationalise them.
[ 05. June 2015, 05:03: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Trigger warnings can be triggering for old reactionaries.
Historically, it has been reactionaries who have supported limitations on the maximal diffusion of knowledge, and progressives who have opposed them.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
the self-defeating nature of your argument that I outlined above.
All you "outlined above" was a piece of sophistry.
The appropriate responses for a university to make are to abolish trigger warnings because they are dangerous and demeaning, and to make it clear that any litigation over their absence will be vigorously contested.
quote:
I don't think I'm the one begging the question.
People's complaints are evidence that they are upset for some reason, which could be purely ideological.
It is not evidence that they have been damaged.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
OK, Kaplan. I'm done with this thread. You don't seem to think people's feelings are as important as imaginary lawsuits, and I'm clearly not going to persuade you otherwise.
t
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And this has what to do with trigger warnings? If this happens it will happen with or without trigger warnings. If there is some tidal cultural shift that makes this more likely to happen now than it was in the first 700ish years of the existence of universities, then trigger warnings are a symptom, not an etiology.
These are my thoughts too. These are surely two different issues here - the issue of whether some kind of trigger warning can be helpful and constructively applied within certain settings, and the issue of people unrealistically expecting trigger warnings to protect them from ever being triggered, and suing when this doesn't happen. The latter shouldn't prevent us considering the former.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
I am thinking more about this:
quote:
Instead, as with other disabilities, a student diagnosed with PTSD should, in advance, agree on a plan for treatment with the relevant health advisors who, in some cases, may want to alert teachers to the presence of a trauma victim in their classroom. The Americans with Disabilities Act contains recommendations for reasonable accommodation to be made on an individual basis. This should be done without affecting other students’ exposure to material that has educational value.
Now, I'm in the UK, so can't speak for the US, but when I studied recently, I was part of a disability implementation group, to try to help the uni become more accessible in general to people with disabilities. And one thing we talked about a lot was the fact that things that help people with disabilities are often helpful for the entire class. And very helpful for people who, for one reason or another, haven't felt safe to disclose their disability.
We were talking about things like lecturers providing the powerpoint presentations to the class in advance of the lecture - the lecturers really didn't want to do that, often because (at their own admission!) they left their preparations to the night before, and so it was inconvenient to have to prepare powerpoints early. And they were resistent when I asked to have the powerpoints ahead of time, for disability reasons. But it turned out that they were supposed to do this, for inclusiveness, not just for me but for everyone.
And this makes sense to me - not just for the ease of people who have undisclosed disabilities, but also so that the disabled person doesn't feel too different or singled out. It can feel quite alienating to be treated like you're the different one - and lecturers can resent your 'difference' and see you as difficult! To give an example that it's perhaps easier to relate to, I imagine that people using wheelchairs feel more included when there are ramps built into a building, rather than having to request a ramp taken out especially for them whenever they want to access a building.
So, to me, the question of whether some kind of trigger warnings might be helpful and enable traumatised students to access a course more easily is surely the first thing to consider - rather than dismiss it out of hand because of possible consequences of students taking it to an extreme of expecting never to be triggered. Once that is established - if it does make the course more accessible - then it makes sense to go on to consider the parameters of such warnings, and how they could be incorporated into a class setting, in a helpful, non-intrusive way. Because, if they are helpful to traumatised people, then it will be helpful to have them for all students. Realistically, there will be students who have undiagnosed or undisclosed trauma.
But, if some students were for some reason absolutely opposed to trigger warnings, it would surely also be possible for students to choose whether they want trigger warnings or not. And potentially trigger warnings could come in email form to students who want them. It would be interesting to see how many students would choose to have them, and I imagine it would make students officially diagnosed with PTSD and registered with disability services feel less alone and different.
[ 05. June 2015, 08:18: Message edited by: Fineline ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
There's probably a broader question about what people must be warned about, and what steps authorities must take to deal with them. In a regional park* here, a beach had some old but healthy trees some of which branches ran parallel to the ground and then gently soared up. All it took was one child climbing to significant height and falling, threatened legal action, for (a) signage that climbing was prohibitted, and when this didn't dissuade everyone, (b)the park sawed them all down, replanting little shrubs. Similar actions with fences for duck ponds where people used to sometimes sit on the shore and soak their feet have occurred when one person went swimming, ran into trouble and legal action was threatened. I have seen warnings about theatre productions as well: this may offend etc.
How much help with their own-selves, behaviour and responses do people really need? Can't we manage ourselves at all?
*regional park: owned and operated by a town or village
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
When I was a kid, I had a terrifying encounter with a large boa constrictor. I hate snakes. I hate pictures and videos of snakes. Snakeskin shoes and belts and purses freak me out. I loathe and despise people who keep snakes as pets. There have been many times when I would have really appreciated being told not to turn that page or watch that video, but I can't remember it ever getting a warning about snakes ahead. Except maybe when Sallah said, "Indy, why does the floor ... move?"
This week, there was a movie shoot at my workplace involving a huge number of WWII German and Japanese military vehicles, all swastikas and rising suns. There were signs posted at the perimeter of the shoot, and they covered up the swastikas with tape when they weren't filming.
I think it's a common concerns that creating any kind of code or policy for trigger warnings is that it is impossible to anticipate all of everybody's triggers. So the trigger warnings only get applied to the most common, or most disturbing, or awareness-of-the-day triggers, giving the impression that some triggers -- and by extension, the people that are triggered -- are more important, or more delicate, or more traumatized, or whatever, than others. Courtesy, awareness and compassion, however, help everybody.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Almost every mental health organisation who's said anything about pro-ana sites has come down on the side of 'nope'. Yes, it might be 'where they're at', but 'where they're at' is not a good place, and trigger warnings there merely reinforce the illusion of control over an illness which, according to some, has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.
I was talking purely about contextual semantics, and using those sites as an illustrative example because I'm familiar with them. Feel free to substitute any other type of site for a particular group discussing a potentially sensitive area with a broadly shared perspective for the example I used.
[irrelevant aside] The negative or positive impact of specifically pro-ana sites as a whole is irrelevant to the point I was making, but FWIW, I have on occasions in the past, and possibly occasions again in the future, found them helpful in a strange and limited way. I know that's not what I'm supposed to say, and that they are deeply unhelpful or dangerous to most/many, including me sometimes, and are best avoided, but it happens to be true [/irrelevant aside]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The point that we're all not really talking about is this: whether the reasonable use of trigger warnings for those genuinely suffering from a serious mental condition (PTSD) has been hijacked by ideologically-motivated activists in order to advance their socio-political agenda.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The point that we're all not really talking about is this: whether the reasonable use of trigger warnings for those genuinely suffering from a serious mental condition (PTSD) has been hijacked by ideologically-motivated activists in order to advance their socio-political agenda.
Well, I think the second argument might be more convincing if activists were lobbying for trigger-warnings to be placed on things that they dislike(eg. feminist demanding trigger-warnings on pornography). Then, you could argue that the trigger-warnings were really just a condemnation of the material in question, dressed up as therapeutic concern.
But, more often than not, I see trigger-warnings placed on the material by the writers or editors themselves, eg. anti-rape activists putting trigger-warnings on essays that contain descriptions of sexual assault. Obviously, they're not trying to condemn their own books.
Though I suppose the subtext of the warnings could be something like "Isn't it horrible that these types of things happen in the world?", rather than simply "Please be aware that these descriptions could be upsetting to you."
[ 06. June 2015, 16:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But, more often than not, I see trigger-warnings placed on the material by the writers or editors themselves, eg. anti-rape activists putting trigger-warnings on essays that contain descriptions of sexual assault. Obviously, they're not trying to condemn their own books.
This is what I observe too, in an online setting. People who put up trigger warnings do so for what they have written (sometimes fiction, sometimes an account of their own experiences), and they tend to be people who have experienced rape or some sort of severe abuse.
I think part of it is that in our society abuse is seen as a taboo topic. People don't want you to bring it up in conversation - it's distasteful, inappropriate, private, almost shameful. Which is difficult if that has been your life - when others talk about their childhood, you have to keep silent, or be very very selective with what you share. This sense of taboo, I think, leads many people to think some kind of warning is necessary when they talk about it. And of course, when people are writing about extremely painful experiences, they may assume that the intense pain and fear they are reliving when writing may be shared by those reading.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Trigger warnings can be triggering for old reactionaries.
Historically, it has been reactionaries who have supported limitations on the maximal diffusion of knowledge, and progressives who have opposed them.
Now they both stand opposed.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I think part of it is that in our society abuse is seen as a taboo topic. People don't want you to bring it up in conversation - it's distasteful, inappropriate, private, almost shameful. Which is difficult if that has been your life - when others talk about their childhood, you have to keep silent, or be very very selective with what you share. This sense of taboo, I think, leads many people to think some kind of warning is necessary when they talk about it. And of course, when people are writing about extremely painful experiences, they may assume that the intense pain and fear they are reliving when writing may be shared by those reading.
I know this is only linked tangentally, but the above paragraph made me think of the case of the pianist James Rhodes, where someone else decided that the material and all details about the abuse and rape he suffered as a child at school should be repressed.
His ex-wife brought an injunction against the publication of his autobiography because she felt it would upset their child to read about it. In the article linked to above, he talks a bit about how much that hurt - to have kept it secret all that time, then had to do so again under threat of legal action. I feel for him. I know that's not exactly a "Trigger Warning" - but maybe better that than refusing to allow it to have been published.
Horrible situation for him to be in - and I hope that his child grows up appreciating his courage in speaking of it, and that when hearing about the messiness of the court case, doesn't find that in itself a trauma.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
As regards the specific area of sexual violence in legend and literature (Leda and the Swan, Europa and the bull Zeus, Rape of the Sabine Women, etc) for which trigger warnings are being demanded in some universities, a retired psychotherapist whom I know, and who has done a lot of work with abuse survivors, tells me that while such stories can have a triggering effect on clients in the crisis phase, they can later function as an opportunity to process their experience through an external, removed context.
Of course she was talking about a clinical as opposed to an academic setting but, mutatis mutandis, her comment could be relevant.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's only a matter of time before some student does sue a university over some (possibly quite unforeseen by any reasonable person) allegedly offensive comment or incident in a classical text which allegedly traumatised them, at which point universities will go into litigation avoidance mode, with who knows what consequences for scholarship.
And this has what to do with trigger warnings? If this happens it will happen with or without trigger warnings. If there is some tidal cultural shift that makes this more likely to happen now than it was in the first 700ish years of the existence of universities, then trigger warnings are a symptom, not an etiology.
I think it's largely due to the new culture, in the US, anyway, that college students are consumers and the university needs to be responsive to consumer demands and desires. A college degree is a means to the end of a better job/career and earning more money over your lifetime. For most of the academy's history, this was not the case - it was about education, formation, and creating good citizens.
I'm grateful to this thread for the suggestion of "content note" or "advisory" - for me, as Kelly also said above, "trigger warning" has clinical connotations. It's about what triggers symptoms of one's mental illness to recur. That's not dissimilar to the warning on the can of Diet Dr. Pepper I'm drinking right now: "Phenylketonurics: Contains pheylalanine."
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As regards the specific area of sexual violence in legend and literature (Leda and the Swan, Europa and the bull Zeus, Rape of the Sabine Women, etc) for which trigger warnings are being demanded in some universities, a retired psychotherapist whom I know, and who has done a lot of work with abuse survivors, tells me that while such stories can have a triggering effect on clients in the crisis phase, they can later function as an opportunity to process their experience through an external, removed context.
I agree with this. When I was working through PTSD, I generally welcomed being triggered, because it would bring something painful to the surface and help me process it and work through it. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have wanted trigger warnings, but I find I'm quite unusual in having wanted to face the traumatic memories head on from the start - a lot of people want to avoid them. I personally found it harder to have them buried inside me than to have them 'triggered' and therefore in my conscious mind to process.
For me, it wasn't in a clinical setting - I worked through it mostly by myself, in my own reading. But I also didn't expect lecturers to be therapists.
Something I found odd was when I once joined a web community for people working through childhood abuse, I introduced myself in the forums, just a general intro, nothing specific, but I used the word 'abuse' (as that is what the website was about), and one of the admins changed it to 'a****e', as it was seen as a triggering word. I really didn't understand that - if you join a website about being a survivor childhood abuse (and 'abuse' was in the title of the website) surely you already know that this is what it is about, so it shouldn't be an unexpected trigger. I didn't stay in the group - it wasn't helpful.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Very interesting, fineline. It reminds me of the old theory of catharsis and abreaction, that is, let the bad stuff out, indeed provoke it. It's a dangerous technique though, as I remember in encounter groups. Jung used to warn some people not to do therapy, because of restimulation, and today survivors of disasters are not automatically counselled, for fear of the same.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very interesting, fineline. It reminds me of the old theory of catharsis and abreaction, that is, let the bad stuff out, indeed provoke it. It's a dangerous technique though, as I remember in encounter groups. Jung used to warn some people not to do therapy, because of restimulation, and today survivors of disasters are not automatically counselled, for fear of the same.
Yes, I think it is unhelpful for some people - some I know say it makes them suicidal. I don't know why I was different and felt the need to do it. It was painful but very helpful for me. Maybe it's because I'm on the autism spectrum and don't automatically process emotions in general, and used to live in a state of confusion until I learnt how to do it. So I had to process these emotions and experiences - it was kind of necessary to process the past in order to process the present. I wouldn't recommend it in general - everyone is different and it can be harmful for some people. Denial is apparently an essential survival mechanism for a lot of people. But my mind doesn't seem to do the denial thing.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
On the other hand, though, thinking about it more, retelling the trauma is an essential part of the recovery process, according to Judith Herman, in her book Trauma and Recovery (which is seen as a classic on PTSD). You have to experience the extra pain of deliberately reliving it in order to get better. Otherwise you will just keep getting flashbacks and be constantly triggered. But I think she recommends to use caution and stop if a person starts feeling suicidal.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The very repetitive act of recalling in today's context confirms the memory, and the telling today may become part of a new today trauma, i.e., "when I retold or was forced to retell my trauma to myself today...:", accompanied by whatever troubling emotions. It is narrow (the word I use for it) and specific circumstances that caused the trauma, not everything that might be associated or a reminder of it. This is a goal, but the fact of triggers and cues means that it is essential and the responsibility of the traumatized person to manage this and be prepared to manage it.
I am not fond of Judith Herman and her quite uncritical acceptance of traumatic memory, repression etc. Perhaps she has moved away from that. Elizabeth Loftus' criticisms and real concern regarding much of Herman's work and the filling in of trauma stories with false memory has been compelling to me re sexual trauma.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer to trauma. Fineline came up with a way to handle it that was suitable for her. It would probably not be suitable for many other people.
I think people should trust their instincts in this matter.
Moo
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
There was something on the radio (R4 - if I can remember when it was, I'll try and find a link) that said counselling straight after a traumatic event tended to make PTSD far worse. The NHS advice is that the person should be looked after by family and friends, and a few weeks later, give them a quick once-over to check they're not suffering from early symptoms, and that two thirds of people simply get better on their own.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Non-directive counselling is conta-indicated. Watchful waiting is recommended for at least a month to allow people to heal naturally. If that doesn't work, there a small number of therapies with a good evidence base.
By contraindicated, I do mean - can make it much worse (in general, not just directly afterward.)
[ 09. June 2015, 21:57: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
On This page, near the bottom, it says about RCTs (randomized controlled trials): "A review of the literature on debriefing RCTs (23) concluded that there is little evidence to support the continued use of debriefing with acutely traumatized individuals.", and goes on to say that this is a incomplete picture of management of critical incidents.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The body/brain is equipped with it's own mechanism to deal with trauma, IE recurring dreams experienced by war veterans etc. (that isn't to dismiss therapy).
A lot of these things seem to vary from person to person. Some who've had severe traumatic experiences can live relatively normal, even highly successful lives without much bother. Whereas others with comparatively mild trauma can spend there whole lives with a feeling that their upbringing, or particular events, have caused life-long negativity.
As for Trigger warnings on printed texts or programmes which sound like "Don't look now if you think you might be affected"? Likely to more a case of curiosity killed the cat.
If however the door should open for litigation on all this type of stuff then I should imagine every single thing will have to have some kind of mental health disclaimer, sites like this for starters.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
Surely, as well, it depends on the duration of the trauma, and whether a person had a safe, non-traumatised period in their life before the trauma, or if the trauma was there from the beginning, so their brains developed with it.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I severely doubt that those who actually find X traumatizing (as opposed to the average curious college student) for instance because of PTSD, are likely to be encouraged to click by a content warning! Someone who is traumatized by such things knows exactly what kind of content they will see if they click, and would have no inclination.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I severely doubt that those who actually find X traumatizing (as opposed to the average curious college student) for instance because of PTSD, are likely to be encouraged to click by a content warning! Someone who is traumatized by such things knows exactly what kind of content they will see if they click, and would have no inclination.
I agree. I have friends who easily get triggered from past trauma and they will avoid a book or film if they hear that it is disturbing. They appreciate the warning.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
There was a day when we only had TV and never dreamt of the limitless well of possibilities that is the Internet.
During the late 60s into the 70s programme and film makers were becoming ever more experimental and daring with production ideas. I can recall some things that were really quite disturbing. The only trigger warning was the announcer pre-stating --"The following programme may not be suitable for those of a nervous disposition". This seemed a genuine attempt to protect those who might easily be upset, remembering of course there were many people still around who'd lived through the trauma of 2 World wars.
Even though fortunate enough not to have had too much trauma in my own life I, like Fineline, do appreciate some of the warnings available now, although they do seem to be becoming ever more specific.
The IT is a completely different beast, one rather more difficult to police. It has, up until recently, been a case of user beware. The point made in OP is a fair comment though and, from what I see, people are already getting more wary about what they post for fear of being accused of causing offence.
The Law is currently changing to catch up with rogue tactics on the Internet, (like the posting of revenge porn for example). There's no saying that it won't eventually come to include someone inadvertently causing offence while giving opinions on, or by the posting of, contentious topics. Such a thing certainly won't escape to attention of sharp-eyed lawyers who've already made personal injury claims an industry in it's own right.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0