Trigger Warnings

Through my various encounters on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms, I've always come across someone yelling and screaming at me telling me "I'M TRIGGERED" and "YOU SHOULD HAVE PUT UP A TRIGGER WARNING", usually followed by a remark such as "WHITE MALE SCUM" or "KILL YOURSELF".

Now I've seen these online and frankly, I think they're stupid. If someone tells me something that makes me uncomfortable or something that may offend me, I either just say something along the lines of "Dude, that's not cool" or just simply shrug it off unless it really hits home for me. But even at times like that I usually just say to myself "Ignore them" or "Vent your anger later".

So why is it that everyone on the internet seems to need a trigger warning for everything? I heard that a college in Rhode Island now has what are called "safe rooms" which are places where university students (grown adults) can seclude themselves away in a room with calming music, Play-Doh, and coloring books from other people whenever they feel "triggered" or "offended".

So what are your opinions on this sort of thing? Do you think people need these sort of warnings everywhere or is everyone just overly sensitive about everything?

My thoughts on the matter are pretty much summed up in this video:



Safe room article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html

 

Basically this. It's kind of like watching a BBC documentary and the narrator says "the following has graphic content", except trigger warnings are for pretty much any little thing that could make someone offended or uncomfortable

 

Trigger warning?
Guns have triggers; you need no warning that it is potentially harmful. That is a given. People are the same way; anything can come out of that mouth, you should already be aware of that. That is a given.

If someone were to trigger me, I would give a warning. Subtle, neutral. You want to keep on getting at me? Well, online is no problem. I can very easily shut you up with the click of a button. Of course, I may want to talk back to straighten things out. Come on, cussing and adding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is not going to get your point across any more than basic text.

Proverbs 15:1 King James Version (KJV)
''A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.''
(oops, forgot trigger warning, religious material)

A speaking of that, it surprises me that prayer is/can_be used in government meetings, but is outlawed in schools.

Civility has made us weak, and civility has caused us to become uncivil. (Excessive civility)
We are fragile little people you cannot bear feeling offense, and must be be placed in our protected little world. Obviously, we little people need warnings to protect us from this harsh world.
My raw answer to this: No, they do not need these warnings. They are overly sensitive and should grow some skin if everything that they come in contact with hurts them so badly.

Tell me, where did we go so wrong?

(whoops, forgot all my trigger warnings, oh well, I'm only human)

 

We babied the little shits too much because of "political correctness" to which I say to those big babies: "deal with it or get the fuck off." I will not censor myself just because they can't learn how to cope without being coddled and sucking on that political correctness tit.

 

From my understanding, the "trigger" for people is something that triggers a reminder of something traumatic that they have experienced. Eg, a detailed telling of a shooting could strongly remind someone of a time they were at the scene of a mass shooting and feared for their life. The reason people ask for trigger warnings is not only protect themselves from re-experiencing the trauma, but also as an aid so that they can purposely look things with trigger warnings to desensitise them self and not need the protection anymore.
Sincerely, a white male.

P.S. Where are all the "I'm triggered, white male scum!" things anyway? I never see them unless it's someone joking about it...

 

I suppose those are understandable, but these prissy people like to think everything triggers them and that there should be a trigger warning for every microaggression

Also, I suppose it's just you looking in the wrong places. I've received three death threats in my PM box on Facebook from SJWs (social justice warriors) for saying something that "triggered" them

 

You can put up all the warnings you want and people will still get offended that is life. Until we become One People Or All Become Cyborg's we will always have different views that may be offensive to others.

The problem in today's society is every Tom, Dick and Harry believe its their right at not being offended ever and if you do offend them well watch out they will ruin your life through Social Media. Everyone will get offended at least once in their life the only thing that changed now is the way we cope with it.

Before:

Kid:
Daddy the doctor offended me He said I was short for my age!

Dad:
It will be fine you will grow eventually and even if you don't its still ok.



Now:

Kid:
Daddy the doctor offended me He said I was short for my age!

Dad:
What!!! this is Blasphemy!!

**Dad's gets on phone with human's right saying his son since he is short will never have the opportunity that tall people have and they must pay.
**Post on social media how this Doctor is a bigot. because he simply stated that his son was short for his age.
**Calls the media so they can run a story of how his child was offended and now he will be a delinquent for the rest of his life.
**Wants to pass a law that people over 6 feet needs to have corrective surgery to make them shorter so his son can feel like he belongs.


I could go on but you get my point. Its pretty sad that people will never learn how to cope with adversity in this PC world...

 

Huh.
People whine about there not being enough diversity (sexual and racial), then they whine about everyone not being like them.
It disgusts me.

 

Sorry @Core I meant to spell Adversity not Diversity lol My bad

 

...Well!
This is embarrassing...

 

If it's something understandable (like rape and whatnot), then fine, but if it's something stupid like "I stubbed my toe on an ikea table one time and now whenever someone says Ikea it TRIGGERS ME!" then no. I honestly find the word stupid TBH. If you are polite about it, and it's a reasonable thing, then yes I won't say it around you, or I'll tag my post with it, but if you're going to be a little shit about it and call me names, or if it's something really, really stupid (I.E. I were to post a picture of my wearing a wolf ear hat and someone says it triggers them because I am not Wolfkin) then no, I won't. In fact I might be inclined to do it even more.

I've gotten harassment from people on both Skype and in some of the MMO's that I play just for saying something they don't like. They label me stuff like MRA, or a racist, or homophobic, or whatever all just because I say one thing they don't like. This shit needs to fucking STOP. People need to grow the fuck up. How do you expect to handle life like this? What is this teaching children? What it's teaching them is that they don't need to grow up, all they need is a phone and social media, and BAM, that person who called you four eyes? They lost their job. Putting trigger warnings for something dumb teaches no one ANYTHING. All it does is it makes them worse, and worse, and worse.

Part of growing up is over coming life's hardships and adversities. It's about learning how to deal with whatever may happen to you in your life. All this "political correct" BS is doing is hurting people growth. I grew up in an age where people insulted me. They called me a faggot and gay right to my face, and guess what? It hurt. It hurt a lot, but I. Grew. Up. I grew out of it. It took me a while. I didn't get over it till I was about 20 (and this happend when I was 12 and lasted till I was 16) but the thing is is that it's called life. You are going to meet people who don't like you for no reason what so ever. You are going to be met with insults, both online and in real life. You are going to be met with hardship and hurt. But you will grow out of it, and learn to get over it if you LET yourself get over it.

Yes, some things never go away. I don't understand what it's like to be raped (though I was touched as a little kid by someone my age multiple times against my will) and I understand that it will never leave you. that feeling of dread you get when you read a story that has to do with that topic, or watch a TV show or Youtube video that deals with that topic. That feeling of having a loved one hurt you both physically and mentally. Those things don't go away, but the pain of this name calling and harassment will go away. It will go away if you let it.

Didn't mean to go on a rant there. This subject I guess just gets to me sometimes due to how it's misused so often for mundane shit, when it is useful for victims of violence and rape. I get so tired of someone saying "lol ur dum" and a group of people ganging up on said person, calling them shit like "scum" and "problematic" when this person could be going through something themself. It's so backwards. These people who want everyone to be nice, in turn are some of the worse bullies you will ever encounter.

Anyway moral of the story I don't mind putting a Trigger Warning up if it's on a topic that makes sense for it to be there.

 

I feel like this thread demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what a trigger warning actually is. That is to say that we all seem to understand the necessity of warnings for content that might trigger severe psychological reactions, but we also seem to be mistaking extremists for the norm and lumping the necessary and the ludicrous together.

This is my point.

These extremes are not necessarily representative of the norm. Obviously, it is never acceptable to tell anyone to "kill themselves." But we simply cannot use this as an argument against trigger warnings, because this kind of utter idiocy occurs in both groups for and opposed to trigger warnings.

If we focus on this, we have to ask the question: are we still discussing trigger warnings or are we just ranting against assholes on the internet?

That statement made no sense.

I hear this a lot. But mostly from "Boomers" ranting against "Millenials." In almost every case it is little more than a knee-jerk reaction to extremism which, due to said reactions, ends up representing a far wider range of individuals than it has any right to. Or, particularly in the case of "Boomers", this comes as a knee-jerk reaction to what is perceived as a threat to some sense of "values" or "tradition."

In any case, there is little to no evidence to suggest that "Millenials" or even just modern society as a whole is, by-in-large, filled with special little snowflakes that can't handle someone criticizing their sand castle.

Pretty much this..

So, let's talk about actual trigger warnings.

Trigger warnings are so named as they warn consumers of content that may aggravate psychological disorders, ailments, or lasting trauma. Content that may "trigger" an adverse reaction.

As someone who suffers from PTSD resulting from abuse and military service, I find myself wanting for trigger warnings in more content. As I have, on several occasions, consumed content or attended some event or something of the like that featured imagery that triggered my PTSD. At best I clench my fists and grit my teeth and try to bear with it. At worst I can have full-on panic attacks. It has absolutely nothing to do with me being sensitive. It's just the result of severe psychological trauma that I have to live with on a daily basis.

Let me be clear: I wouldn't advocate for trigger warnings on absolutely everything. Clearly, the Teletubbies (is that still a thing?) needn't be sign posted for military or abuse related PTSD triggers, because there is nothing contained within that would, with any degree of reasonable probability, relate to the events that caused said trauma in such a way as to cause me to re-live it. But, when a teacher knows she has veterans in class, it might help to give a heads up before you pop on Apocalypse Now.

In other words, if you are producing content which contains graphic imagery, re-enactments, detailed descriptions, or anything which might, with any degree of reasonable probability (those are the key words), trigger an adverse psychological reaction in response to trauma, it should be clearly sign-posted.

We all have the right to say or have whatever opinions we please. But, we absolutely do not have the right to have those words or opinions go unchallenged.

The line must be drawn when said challenge turns to abuse in the form of name-calling, death threats, or even just forcing a conversation on someone that they have expressed their desire to have no part of (i.e. harassing someone by continually messaging them despite them asking you to stop).

But these are extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, as I've said before, the loudest and the most aggressive tend to be the most visible, especially online.

As I said earlier in this post, we must draw a line between an actual discussion about trigger warnings and just complaining about assholes on the internet. Someone who gets up-in-arms about not having "trigger warnings" about content which may express an opposing viewpoint are not advocating for trigger warnings. They are advocating for the alienation of any view aside from their own (i.e. they're just an asshole on the internet).

 

They can challenge all they want, but they either deal with the fact I don't have to censor myself or they can get the fuck off. They should never be coddled. I refuse to waste my time tip-toeing around words because "that triggers me." If they don't want to be a part of the conversation, they need to leave and find another conversation. They should not continue participating in the conversation. That was the point I was making in my initial post when I said they either deal with it or get the fuck off. Most of the conversations are not private messaged. If I'm private messaging you, it's either one of two things:

1. You are a friend, to which there won't be any warnings, because we have already established what is and is not alright to talk about
2. I'm asking who you are (usually a result of a friend request to which I am unfamiliar with your screen name and/or real name).

All else locations of conversation is purview of the public domain and at any point participants can "opt out" or "ignore" the discussion. They however cannot stop everyone else from continuing the discussion because they can't (are unwilling to) cope with it and just leave the conversation.

 

Now this version of a trigger warning makes more sense, in comparison to the full-blown whiny person who must not be offended.

I tend to base things off of givens, such as what was shown in the video.

A lack of the right words ended up dispensing this. That, and maybe a bad mood.
My idea was this: It seems as people/society become more 'refined', they become more sensitive to things, yet these people are aggressive when offended.

This was based off of my original/first definition of the trigger warning that I knew about, and with Timekeeper's mentioning of people going off on him.

 

I feel like you, to some degree, just repeated what I said?

No one has the right to make anyone feel unsafe. Ever. Likewise, no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot discuss (see the part of my post that you quoted).

For instance, if you are in, say, an internet forum and you create a thread about something that someone may be triggered by (again, we're talking about actual triggers, not the "triggers" which we started off discussing), you should make every effort to make it pretty clear that said thread will contain material that, say, PTSD sufferers may find difficult to view. Because, once I'm already in the thread, wholly unaware of the content, once I stumble across the offending content, it's too late. Panic attack kicks in and I have been caused actual harm because you didn't take two seconds to say "hey, if you have experienced 'x' trauma, you may not want to view this."

That's not censorship. That's just being a decent human being.

And, again, not everything need be sign-posted. Just content which has a *reasonable degree of probability* (keywords) of triggering an adverse psychological reaction. If someone gets triggered by your thread about the Teletubbies, that's not your fault. There is nothing contained within to suggest that it would trigger any kind of adverse psychological reaction. But if you make a thread discussing rape, you need to make it clear that you will be discussing rape so that anyone triggered by that can avoid it. Just use your best judgement.

But, if you are simply using language that someone doesn't like or expressing a viewpoint that someone doesn't like, that is absolutely not a trigger and needs no warning. If I say "pineapples are the best fruit" you absolutely have the right to say "no, they're not." If I then try to say that you're "triggering" me, either I'm full of shit or I've had some really traumatic experiences with the anti-pineapple crowd.

Which is my point. There is a real difference between actual trigger warnings which protect people who have experienced trauma from unknowingly walking into something that may cause them further harm and "triggers" which equate to people who don't want anyone to challenge their entrenched world-view.

 

This completely baffles me. The internet is completely anonymous. It's understandable if you KNOW that person, but if you don't, then how could you feel unsafe if you don't know the person and the person doesn't know you? The ONLY way that would make sense is if someone doxxed you. This reminds me of a South Park episode....

It is censorship if you are FORCED into doing it. It's being a decent human being if you CHOSE to do it. Yes, you can be forced into doing it. I have seen people threaten people who use words they don't like on social media. People have lost their jobs over social media. Fun fact: the way someone acts on the internet is NOT reflective on how someone acts in real life. I can think of a few people I know on Skype who act like asshats online, but are kind human beings offline.

I agree with this completely. That's why I try not to talk about certain things on here and leave out certain words from titles.

I have nothing wrong with this, just saying it's my new Skype name. xD

 

First: no one can force anyone into anything, unless it's the government.

Second: that's not what censorship is..

Third: I don't think my posts are being read. I've already made clear the distinction between actual trigger warnings and people who harass others for expressing opposing views (i.e. assholes on the Internet).

But if you make a post titled, I don't know, "My Experience" or something vague of the like and fail to mention that said content contains graphic depictions or descriptions of rape, that isn't okay. And you deserve to be called out on it.

Let's be clear: no one deserves to be harassed at any time for any reason. But if you fail to take into consideration how your actions might harm others, you absolutely deserve to be criticized for it (there's a difference).

Finally: you cannot separate the two. We don't turn into virtual beings with no personalities online. We don't suddenly lose the ability to understand language. Abusing a person online is not the same as abusing an NPC in a game.

Online interactions are real life interactions. The Internet is simply another means of communication. It's no different than using the phone or any other form of communication.

Just because you can remain anonymous online doesn't mean that all bets are off and your words and actions have no consequences.

If someone called your house and started leveling threats at you, you would be pretty concerned. You don't know who they are. They may not even know who you are or where you live. They may have just started dialing numbers and picking on whomever answers.

The Internet is no different. You have no idea who anyone is or how much they know about you. If you behave in a threatening manner online or through any other form of communication, you're obviously going to make the person on the receiving end feel unsafe.

If anything, the Internet is worse. Because it becomes even more difficult to identify transgressors and near impossible to discern how legitimate or plausible their threats are.

Never mind that the police share a similar attitude of "the Internet shouldn't affect 'real life'" and have a terrible track record when it comes to investigating threats leveled online.

Ever heard the expression "a person who is nice to you but rude to the waiter is not a nice person"? The same concept applies. Regardless of how you treat others in "real life", you interactions online do, in fact, reflect on your character. Because those interactions are still with actual people. And any time that you're dealing with a living, breathing human being, your words and deeds will have real world consequences for one or more parties involved.

Harassment is not okay. Abuse is not okay. Threats are not okay. Treating anyone in a way that makes them out to be anything less than a person with the same right to life and basic human dignity that you would expected to be afforded, yourself is not okay. Online, over the phone, or in person. Ever.

 

I am. Here, let me show you.

You did. In this same post you said:

Essentially, what you are saying is that unless you are face-to-face, your interactions do not matter. Any harassment or abuse should be ignored. "You're on the internet, you should expect to be harassed."

How on earth is it acceptable to say or even imply that harassment should be ignored? In any medium?

How is it a revolutionary idea to maybe focus on combating harassment instead of focusing on teaching targets of harassment to "just deal with it"?

You're combating the symptoms, not the issue.

If you still think I'm putting words in your mouth, read on.

You literally just said to ignore harassment, unless it's a cause for concern.

But is harassment in and of itself not cause for concern?

Maybe we should define harassment.

If we have a bit of a fight or, even, if I just get mad and say "fuck you." That's not harassment. If, however, I start saying "go kill yourself" or "I'll kill you" or "I hope 'x' happens to you" or "I know where you live", etc. That is harassment and is wholly unacceptable.

Why should statements like that be ignored? You write them off as baseless, but have no evidence to do so.

What evidence is there of this? Furthermore, even if you are correct, what about the 1 out of 10 that isn't an empty threat?

As I said, you have absolutely no way of knowing. Online, someone can divulge as much or as little information as they please. You have no idea if someone actually knows who you are or where you live unless they go out of their way to inform you of as much. And how does it make any sense to assume that they would? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that you seem to be under the impression that it always happens. That, unless you receive information from the harasser that verifies that they do in fact know who you are, then their claims are not only to not be taken seriously, but are to be ignored outright.

Again, not putting words in your mouth.

Right, but..

Here's why I feel like they aren't.

Because I feel like you're making arguments that we agree upon. Which makes me feel like either you don't understand my point or I don't understand your point.

Because, here, you agree with my sentiment. But then go on to ask if it's okay to harass people for "x" reason. When I've already made clear that it isn't okay to harass people for any reason.

It seems to me that we are in agreement that criticism is different than harassment. So, if someone is an asshole online, it isn't okay to harass them. If someone is a "saint" online, it isn't okay to harass them. If you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., you do not deserve to be harassed. If you make a statement that is feminist, socialist, or progressive, you do not deserve to be harassed.

This takes me back to my previous statement:

It is fine to challenge, or criticize, anything that anyone says. It is never acceptable to harass another human being, regardless of what opinions they express.

So, this is why I feel like there has been something lost in communication. Because, looking at your posts, and looking at mine, it seems as though we agree on this.

Would that be a correct assessment?

I would argue that this isn't censorship, because no one is actively using their authority to remove statements that they don't like.

That's not to say that what you've described isn't wrong, just that I don't think it quite fits that definition.

But, we're just playing semantics.

Finally, no, you didn't say that. But, as I said in the BLM thread, we don't live in a world of extreme dualities. You needn't be either anti-harassment or pro-harassment.

But the statements that you have made, which I have quoted, do imply that you believe online harassment to be an issue not worth our attention. By suggesting that it simply be ignored and that all but the most black-and-white cases be treated as illegitimate, you lend weight to be the belief that victims of online harassment are just overgrown children who can't handle someone telling them that they're not as special as they think themselves to be.

In other words, you may not be saying that harassment is okay. But you are saying that it's not worth our attention.

 

Last post. I'm not saying that harassment shouldn't be dealt with, I'm saying harassment that has a base should be dealt with with, but baseless harassment should not be. Someone, who is completely anonymous, who just says "I know where you live", but offers no proof? That's a devils proof. No one can prove that they know where said person lives, except for the person who said that they do. There is nothing, NOTHING, that the police can do about something like that. There is no way, without a search warrant, that they can, LEGALLY, hack someones computer, or search their home. If someone proves that they do, in fact, know not only where you live, then yes, something should be done with that. I understand what you are saying, trust me, I really do, and I agree with about 80% of it, BUT, You need proof. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means. There has to be proof to someones claims, as to my claims as well. The "9 times out of 10" thing was an exaggeration, but there are a majority of cases where the person crying harassment and death threats were baseless. My quote still stands. If you can't deal with someone acting like an asshole (an asshole with no proof) then why are you putting yourself out on the internet to begin with?