Are trigger warnings necessary?

[cheezMcNASTY]

Following video will sadly prove that trigger warnings is something not only adolescents abuse and ruin its initial purpose.

It does not. I've gone to class with traumatized vets and seen them brought to tears from class materials. Just because "most trauma victims" are resilient does not suggest they all are. "They convey the message that women are helpless"? Really? Women aren't the only trauma victims and this is much larger than feminism. They picked one rather ridiculous example of a trigger warning and paraded it throughout the video. Fact is, even if the trigger warning isn't used by the viewer/reader, they at least have a warning. They won't know if it's too much until they get there but at least have the option to proceed at their own risk.

I don't think jazz hands or a bloody nose call for them. That's melodrama. But graphic scenes of violence or rape? Something that might have been listed by the ESRB to warrant a harsher rating? I've been traumatized and I'm grateful to know ahead of time what I'm getting myself into. I'd rather not sacrifice how well I'm holding it together that day when I'm seeking entertainment. There are real iterations of these warnings, and then there are the melodramatic versions that are at worst only unnecessary. If the above poster who separated content warnings from trigger warnings is correct, then I guess I'm agreeing with them.

Though I really don't understand why this is being tied to feminism when it seems like a much broader subject.

 

[Viper]

It does not. I've gone to class with traumatized vets and seen them brought to tears from class materials. Just because "most trauma victims" are resilient does not suggest they all are. "They convey the message that women are helpless"? Really? Women aren't the only trauma victims and this is much larger than feminism. They picked one rather ridiculous example of a trigger warning and paraded it throughout the video. Fact is, even if the trigger warning isn't used by the viewer/reader, they at least have a warning. They won't know if it's too much until they get there but at least have the option to proceed at their own risk.

I don't think jazz hands or a bloody nose call for them. That's melodrama. But graphic scenes of violence or rape? Something that might have been listed by the ESRB to warrant a harsher rating? I've been traumatized and I'm grateful to know ahead of time what I'm getting myself into. I'd rather not sacrifice how well I'm holding it together that day when I'm seeking entertainment. There are real iterations of these warnings, and then there are the melodramatic versions that are at worst only unnecessary. If the above poster who separated content warnings from trigger warnings is correct, then I guess I'm agreeing with them.

Though I really don't understand why this is being tied to feminism when it seems like a much broader subject.

I didn't say trigger warnings are absolutely obsolete, neither did this woman, whose video series called Factual Feminist is about feminism and functions as a modern version of a newspaper column on a channel that covers variety of subjects, hence why the video in question only talks about women. I thought you'd figure that out, but next time I'll put a "trigger warning".
I'm saying misuse of term trigger warning is not something done only by adolescents on internet, radical feminists and sjws do it too for literature classes and big, public conventions, insulting people's intelligence in the process, cause even if you find out in middle of a very clearly titled convention that you can't handle it after all, their proposed solution is even worse.

 

[V]

A movie, film, play or even book could incur symptoms of PTSD or anxiety I suppose. I don't have PTSD as far as I know but I do have certain triggers myself that cause immediate tension and unease as a result of unpleasant experiences like sexual assault and childhood trauma. But do movies and forms of entertainment cause me to mentally relive them or freak out? No. Somehow I am able to separate fictional images from real-life threats. But I can see how some people may not be able to especially if it's hidden in the material without warning, or if their experiences were far worse than mine.

That's why I'm ok with warnings on entertainment that contains things like rape, excessive violence, etc. And for things kids might read.

But not really for passing comments, jokes, forum posts, tweets, words/terms and the like. At some point even the traumatized have to understand that there can't be warnings on everything and that if they are traumatized they need to heal so that they not longer are. That "ban bossy" campaign was beyond belief.

Misuse of trigger warnings is a thing as Viper said. Seen it myself, some people using it as a means to get posts or arguments or material they personally don't like pulled because someone claimed it "triggered" them and the relevant authorities immediately jump in to remove the offending information in an effort to be progressive and PC (note 'political correctness' is merely a form of ideological censorship). Even when it isn't offensive. Honestly I can see the use in entertainment media coming with warnings, but not opinions, arguments, adjectives like 'bossy' and personal statements in the real world.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

I didn't say trigger warnings are absolutely obsolete, neither did this woman, whose video series called Factual Feminist is about feminism and functions as a modern version of a newspaper column on a channel that covers variety of subjects, hence why the video in question only talks about women. I thought you'd figure that out, but next time I'll put a "trigger warning".

Now, now, you said the video proved something. An opinion piece, as you just hinted in a second post, can't prove anything. Rather it can only get people who were already inclined to agree to nod their heads more. Also, every feminist I've come across has insisted feminism is a movement for both genders, so why would I conclude this only caters to women unless you are insinuating those feminists were mistaken?

I'm saying misuse of term trigger warning is not something done only by adolescents on internet, radical feminists and sjws do it too for literature classes and big, public conventions, insulting people's intelligence in the process, cause even if you find out in middle of a very clearly titled convention that you can't handle it after all, their proposed solution is even worse.

The rest of my post was not intended to be directed at you. I don't really disagree with any of that, since the number of feminism conventions and literature classes I've taken are equally nonexistent.

 

[Viper]

Now, now, you said the video proved something. An opinion piece, as you just hinted in a second post, can't prove anything. Rather it can only get people who were already inclined to agree to nod their heads more. Also, every feminist I've come across has insisted feminism is a movement for both genders, so why would I conclude this only caters to women unless you are insinuating those feminists were mistaken?


The rest of my post was not intended to be directed at you. I don't really disagree with any of that, since the number of feminism conventions and literature classes I've taken are equally nonexistent.

The video did prove something - that trigger warnings get misused to promote oversensitivity. Even if one would remove the lady's comments, that fact would still stand. Just because it's not a scientific analysis doesn't mean it's completely invalid.
Feminism has started as a movement for improving women's position in society, in times when they were second-grade citizens. In parts of the world where it has been achieved its role should be maintaining equality (ie, not letting it fall back into old, discriminatory ways), if not for radfems taking it further, making everyone confused. So feminism is actually a movement for equality from the female side that eventually started to include male side, cause cooperation produces better results than rivalry.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

The video did prove something - that trigger warnings get misused to promote oversensitivity. Even if one would remove the lady's comments, that fact would still stand. Just because it's not a scientific analysis doesn't mean it's completely invalid.

Not completely, no. But you said:
"Following video will sadly prove that trigger warnings is something not only adolescents abuse and ruin its initial purpose."
Yes, it can prove that use by other people exists by citing one example. Ruining their inital purpose, though? That's a broad claim an opinion piece is hardly entitled to make. Especially using only one example.

Feminism has started as a movement for improving women's position in society, in times when they were second-grade citizens. In parts of the world where it has been achieved its role should be maintaining equality (ie, not letting it fall back into old, discriminatory ways), if not for radfems taking it further, making everyone confused. So feminism is actually a movement for equality from the female side that eventually started to include male side, cause cooperation produces better results than rivalry.

All true. So, relating that back to the point you were responding to, feminism is no longer a movement entirely for women, correct? I am, therefore, not failing to "figure out" anything since the feminism movement should, in theory, also apply to me.

Unless I'm mistaken, feminism is for women only, and all of those feminists were just trying to garner support from someone their movement doesn't give two squirts about.

 

[Viper]

Not completely, no. But you said:
"Following video will sadly prove that trigger warnings is something not only adolescents abuse and ruin its initial purpose."
Yes, it can prove that use by other people exists by citing one example. Ruining their inital purpose, though? That's a broad claim an opinion piece is hardly entitled to make.

All true. So, relating that back to the point you were responding to, feminism is no longer a movement entirely for women, correct? I am, therefore, not failing to "figure out" anything since the feminism movement should, in theory, also apply to me.

Unless I'm mistaken, feminism is for women only, and all of those feminists were just trying to garner support from someone their movement doesn't give two squirts about.

It pretty much just takes a little observation to notice that the more a word is being misused, the less ordinary people take it seriously, take the issue behind that word less seriously, it essentially becomes "a boy who cried wolf" kind of thing.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not talking about anything anymore, cause frankly people that take a conversation and lead it into a long debate where every single word is being analyzed make me tired and regretting ever posting anything in the first place. Not everything is about proving a point.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

That's all I'm saying, I'm not talking about anything anymore, cause frankly people that take a conversation and lead it into a long debate where every single word is being analyzed make me tired and regretting ever posting anything in the first place. Not everything is about proving a point.

It takes two to tango, darling.

 

[Dante's Stalker]

I'm on my phone so didn't read the entire thread but in short and on topic, yes, trigger warnings are necessary. Like manners. You want to be polite and show respect to others, use your manners. You want to not be an ignorant, heartless and unintentional sadist, include a trigger warning.

 

[Meg]

Wow, lots of really great points everyone!

I agree that there is a difference between actual victims of PTSD who need a heads up vs. people who are just way to sensitive. My next questions is, how do you really tell the difference? And does that small group of people who really benefit from trigger warnings outweigh the nonsense from everyone else? If so, does that mean trigger warnings are necessary (in addition to general content ratings when applicable) even though many people abuse them?

@Dante's Stalker @cheezMcNASTY Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you're getting at, right? The genuine needs of the few outweigh the phony needs of the many. Meaning TW abuse is annoying, but TWs are still necessary despite this annoyance?

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

@cheezMcNASTY Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you're getting at, right? The genuine needs of the few outweigh the phony needs of the many. Meaning TW abuse is annoying, but TWs are still necessary despite this annoyance?

In a nutshell, yes.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

Trigger warnings aren't something I feel terribly strong about either way. I don't think they necessarily harm the integrity of the work they precede, but at the same time I think they are used a tad too liberally. It's one thing to use it to give trauma victims a heads up on potentially disturbing topics... but if you're enrolled in a women's issues class then you probably shouldn't be shocked and surprised when discussions of sexual violence occur. It's using your head.

As someone who has been through sexual assault, I personally don't find trigger warnings particularly helpful in mitigating trauma. I'm not bothered by words. I have had a difficult time when people approach from behind and touch me. Something totally benign and innocent like a poke or a hug if I can't see the person has upset me in the past but I don't expect people to warn me before they approach. Likewise, my grandmother's husband, who was at Pearl Harbour when it was bombed, had a difficult time with fireworks. Here in Niagara Falls we'd have fireworks every Saturday - he knew about them but he was still incredibly upset when they went off. I think sensory experiences, which in my experience weigh more than words, are often difficult to provide trigger warnings for in the first place.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

I don't know it sounds like I'm being very unreasonable or not, but I don't necessarily agree with the idea of catering for the needs of the few just to please them. I just think that you could say that they should read descriptions of things first, look at what the story or written piece is about first - because there's always a way to find out about a game, book, film - a slight bit of research will give you answers for what you're getting yourself into. And bumping into a part in the story that tackles a certain issue, despite possibly being more than aware that one might exist at some point in the story. It just seems to me like they'll complain and say "I should've had a clear specific warning beforehand".

I'm not for the idea of using issues in a sense to play the 'sensitive card', when not everything is going to suit everyone.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

I have double thoughts on trigger warnings. I like them, but also dislike them.

I like them because they allow people to know what's to be expected and be warned about what the content holds.

But I also dislike them because some people abuse it. Trigger warnings are for sensitive subjects, not subjects you don't want to hear. I always see Trigger Warnings on Tumblr, and it's usually petty crap like "I don't like the word father so don't say it"
Like, I don't know what you went through but I'm not gonna suddenly delete the word from my vocabulary. It's MY blog.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

I have double thoughts on trigger warnings. I like them, but also dislike them.

Everything in moderation, really. Used responsibly it makes sense, right? "Hey, we're gonna be talking at length about rape, so yeah, be wary" is very different from "My brother used to beat me up relentlessly so please don't use 'bro' so flippantly." GTFO with the latter, that's just retarded.

This article is pretty interesting on the subject in regards to an academic setting, and honestly, if academia is finding it to be stupid, then it's certainly gonna be even worse outside of it.

 

[Dante's Stalker]

Wow, lots of really great points everyone!

I agree that there is a difference between actual victims of PTSD who need a heads up vs. people who are just way to sensitive. My next questions is, how do you really tell the difference? And does that small group of people who really benefit from trigger warnings outweigh the nonsense from everyone else? If so, does that mean trigger warnings are necessary (in addition to general content ratings when applicable) even though many people abuse them?

@Dante's Stalker @cheezMcNASTY Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you're getting at, right? The genuine needs of the few outweigh the phony needs of the many. Meaning TW abuse is annoying, but TWs are still necessary despite this annoyance?

Pretty much.

 

[WolfOD64]

I like them because they allow people to know what's to be expected and be warned about what the content holds.

So, you like content warnings, then...because that's exactly what those serve to be.

Good. We're on the same page.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

So, you like content warnings, then...because that's exactly what those serve to be.

Good. We're on the same page.

I just think it's stupid for people to go and yell out "THERE'S RAPE AND DEATH IN THIS MOVIE/BOOK" and cause a big fuss when you knew damn well that at the beginning it warns in bold letter "There will be rape and death in this movie/book"

 

[WolfOD64]

I just think it's stupid for people to go and yell out "THERE'S RAPE AND DEATH IN THIS MOVIE/BOOK" and cause a big fuss when you knew damn well that at the beginning it warns in bold letter "There will be rape and death in this movie/book"

So do I. That's why I like content warnings and Ratings for things instead of trigger warnings.

Warning people of graphic content, unsuitable for minors and squeamish, is and has been a thing for years, and should remain so. Trigger Warnings sprung out of the pristine glass palace of ignorance known as Tumblr, and still goes strong today.

 

[WolfOD64]

What ?
Ratings & content warnings are at times a little vague only telling the general public it contains blood and gore, intense violence, strong language & nudity where as a trigger warning are bit more descriptive & slightly more useful in giving a heads up by explaining what exactly is involved in the content...brutal torture, dismemberment of limbs, violence against women, violence against men, etc.

Ratings can be pretty vague, but online Content Warnings are extremely specific. Any time I look up ratings for videos, or online shows, or anime/manga, the Content Warnings detail a lot of content. But that stuff is things like: "Ultra-violence, nudity, sexual content, dismemberment, war violence, horror violence, vivid rape, etc."

Labeling things for specific stuff like "dismemberment of limbs" and "violence against men/women" is excessive and needless, because it goes into specific detail on things that may or may not even offend people.

What if Return to the King was rated PG-13 for: "that one violent scene where Frodo gets his finger bitten clean off by Golem's teeth."?

That's not a warning, that's a living, breathing description. That'd be absurd, doing it for anything else would be just as ludicrous.