I really don't get it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe some people find them useful who have experienced trauma. But I feel like when people use them, it seems way over the top. You can just make clear what the article is about in the headline or the beginning of the article, and if someone doesn't feel comfortable reading about that topic, they can stop there. They don't need some special warning, as if they can't make the choice to read it or not on their own. I feel like people jump on the trigger warning band wagon because it proves that they are a "good liberal", they care so much about the oppressed that they are making sure to protect them from scary ideas.
Also, what about news stories? You go onto CNN and they'll have an article about ISIS or something, they don't put trigger warnings there. Why? Because it's fricking reality and you can read it or not. I do understand warning people that what they are about to read or see is graphic. But in the way that's done in practice is different than trigger warnings.
I have a satirical concept in my mind where some article deals with some really obscure topic, like, woman eaten by polar bear, and have a trigger warning for people who have been victims of polar bear attacks...or something like that. Or how about hacking into a news site and putting trigger warnings in front of every article.
23 Apr 2016, 12:17 am
