Trigger warning"trigger Warning".Is anybody else tired of it

Post Reply New Topic

Does it really accomplish anything that is more useful than emotionally dramatizing? And
If you think it does, explain what it could possibly be that it accomplishes which is so useful that it needs to be everywhere...all the time or , are you tired of it and is it beginning to make you feel another sort of traumatized every-time you see it? Does it make you feel alienated and like you cannot relate at all to what human interaction is becoming?

your opinion please!

In my opinion, "trigger warnings" are part of the hyper-sensitive radfem left.

I'm on the autistic spectrum. Just going through everyday tasks is psychologically draining for me, but I just have to get over it.

*sigh* What happened to the left? What happened to the provocative strength of the punk rock movement? What happened to the badassery of George Orwell? How will the left change the real world if we can not even face the real world?

Cowards never end up accomplishing anything. Sucks to be them.

The modern left seems to thing that PTSD is a get out of rationality free card. When I was younger, my parents never let me use autism as an excuse to get out of anything. My parents raised me to be a winner, which is why I am an awesome genius today.

Most of those easily triggered SJWs were probably raised by aging hippies and were taught to be losers.

I don't think that someone being potentially "triggered" should be an excuse to avoid discussing difficult topics, but I do think that a warning, especially for those with mental illnesses, for content that might cause them to be upset doesn't hurt. For example, if a video is talking in detail about eating disorders, then this could actually cause someone with an eating disorder to engage in more negative behavior, so in this case a trigger warning is appropriate in my opinion. This doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the topic, but those who could be sensitive to topics due to serious mental disorders should take their mental health into account. I think that the responsibility of avoiding "triggering" topics is 50% on the person with the disorder and 50% on the people presenting the topics. The person talking about something difficult should be aware that it could cause people to be upset, but the person who could be upset should also take the responsibility of deciding whether or not they want to be around the topic and they should take action to avoid the topic on their own instead of expecting everyone to censor themselves.

I think that the SJWs have taken this to the extreme where they put the entire burden of warning the person onto the person presenting the information, which is unfair and is where problems arise. It is also dangerous to use the word "triggering" in a political rather than mental health context. When a feminist is upset by something politically incorrect, unless she has PTSD which I highly doubt, she is not "triggered." On the other hand, if a victim of severe abuse with PTSD is exposed to graphic mentions of abuse and from this gets a panic attack and flashbacks, then they are "triggered." Sadly, the word "triggered" has lost its entire meaning because it has been so politicized, when really it should be entirely mental health related. Then, people might take it more seriously.

I don't even know what "trigger" means. From the context I've seen, I assume it just means "to provoke some sort of emotional response"?

When I first saw it, I thought it meant "this will make you really depressed", but I've also seen it used to mean "someone got offended" or "someone got really angry", "butthurt", or "that guy fell for the troll bait".



I haven't cared enough to look it up =)

It's misapplied terminology from PTSD treatment. For instance if a war veteran or a fire fighter smells a barbecue and it reminds them of the smell of burning flesh and it sets of a panic attack, that's a trigger.

Of course, on the internet, being "triggered" now means "you have said X, so now I'm no longer responsible for my behaviour".

The only "Trigger Warnings" that are useful to me are those involving graphic death imagery or close-ups of spiders -- I hate both, and it's useful to know what not to click on.

Other than that, when I see "Trigger Warning", I know that it's going to be yet another click-bait article on someone else's personal trauma, which the writer blows out of proportion.

At the risk of stating the obvious:

If you do not suffer trauma-related flashbacks, and therefore do not need trigger warnings, you will not see any need for trigger warnings.

If you do suffer trauma-related flashbacks, and therefore do need trigger warnings, you will see a need for trigger warnings.

Like with anything people have ruined a good thing. As others have said trigger warnings and the safe spaces needed to avoid said triggers have been so overused and inflated to the point that anybody arguing for them is assumed to be a snowflake who deserves to be attacked. It has made for a convienient excuse for people to be offensive for offensiviness sake and claim to be a rebel fighting the scrooge of polititical correctness.

The public spaces and college campusus are supposed to be a places for political debate and expression of all non violent kind. That it is often not that way is harming us because ideas not expressed out of fear or do to speech codes are potentially useful concepts never implemented. And yes the overuse of trigger warnings is incorrectly teaching people that life is no risk and failing to teach students that pain and frustration are a normal part of life that needs to be dealt with.

While some use an anti political correctness arguments to cover their bigotry and assholeness the anti trigger warning position does not automatically make every person arguing against trigger warnings a bigot or an enabler of bigotry.

How about this? I'll start caring about other people's PTSD when the world starts caring about MY limitations.

While I feel the same, I can identify with people who suffer from PTSD, so I'll give them some slack. Letting some of my employees have a couple of extra days off around July 4 so that they can go camping in the desert, far away from the neighbors firecrackers and bottle rockets is one way.

It's those people who are so fixated on their own problems who can not start or engage in any conversation without dominating those conversations with the same tales of woe (i.e., "I can't get a date", "My parents hate me", "My employer is unfair", "Nobody likes me", et cetera ... ad nauseum ...) that won't get any slack from me.

I mean, c'mon! They shoulda found some way to solve their problems by now!

I have PTSD and was once triggered by something on this site (that I can remember). It probably wasn’t anything that anyone would’ve considered triggering. I guess it’s just highly individual.

I think, though, that if a post goes into graphic detail in describing something that could be traumatic for someone there should be a “trigger warning.” It’s just called being considerate of other people.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 05 Jul 2018, 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We aren’t always shown kindness and consideration, but that doesn’t make it okay to not be kind and considerate to others. Break the cycle.

Exactly!

We have to be above all the naysayers!

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG! hahaha

I suffer REAL trauma related PTSD and trigger warnings for everything doesn't help me at all. How could it ? there's one for everything? how much warning stew am I expected to dig through to make benefit of the warning that applies to me? And who lives in fear and gets better ever? I think probably it's nobody or only a few and by accident.
They don't work, they only exist to create drama, there's one for everything , you can never police their use in order to regulate it and make sure they are used the intended way and they belong in the same box as self diagnosis.

If you really want to be empathetic to people with trauma, why not just...be empathetic when they cannot deal with it? Unless you don't want to be....? I'm sorry but there's no set of words that makes it ok, there's no token that undoes it. EVEN if a "trigger warning" SOMEHOW slips through the ever growing soup, it's still going to make me think about the trauma...it would still make anyone really traumatized think about the trauma...because they are traumatized...that's why. It fails again. Trigger warnings are for people who are scared of social judgement....they aren't that useful to people with trauma. An accurate title works really well though...I sure appreciate those....but I can understand why they would be less popular...after all an accurate title isn't sensational at all.

I feel like you are making an issue out of a nonissue. If someone uses “trigger warning” to add drama or whatever you say people do, you can just not respond or ignore them.

If a person needs to talk about something in a way that would be triggering for someone, I think the reader should be warned. Then the reader can choose to read or not read at their discretion.

An accurate title could be super long and not get to the heart of the matter.

Some people won't think this is a problem that needs a solution..... many of those are ones who don't want for there to be one. People who didn't get the attention m the deserved, needed (or CRAVE) need help, but they aren't going to get it through false attention because the hunger is bottomless. They need another sort of therapy and taking the attention away from people who genuinely DO need it...is not productive and it;a a long way from being a non issue. But as i have said...fairly easy to spot it...just bring up the issue see who doesn't think it needs solving..that's pretty interesting. At this point even the movements where "trigger warnings" began are openly admitting it has gone too far, so you really have to wonder what kind of agenda would be pushing for more when even the people who started it think it's gone too far.

Run a google search. :\