Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#528,314
I'm a little undecided on it. I think, in general, it's not a bad thing. Lots of people find certain topics unpleasant to read about, and I don't think that there's any harm in dropping in a brief, unintrusive warning prior to something that might bother some people.
Though, on the other hand, I think there is something to be said for learning not be bothered by stuff. I'm not referring to people with PTSD or other serious mental conditions, of course. But trigger warnings becoming more common might encourage people to simply avoid what upsets them rather than learning to deal with and overcome their fear.
I certainly think it should be treated with some restraint, making sure to not just plaster them over everything (no matter how relevant), but I think there could be benefits in extending them a little beyond just PTSD sufferers. I think a good step would be to replace the convention of trigger warnings with just a casual, brief warning(s) before the main text if the author feels that the stuff could seriously bother some people. That way people can judge if they want to read rather than also being influenced by their own perceptions on the idea of trigger warnings.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#528,318
Where do we draw the line between a "trigger" and a non-trigger?
Green !zIU3W4F8WY replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#528,327
I was triggered by your Nerf gun.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#528,335
@528,323 (Handel !XFpaTU3A5E)
That's a difficult question, because it's entirely subjective. Some people might not be bothered by a lot, some people might be pretty sensitive. I guess the logical way to go about that is to determine which subjects often seriously upset people, and deem them worthy of warnings if they're talked about in-depth.
Handel !XFpaTU3A5E (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#528,343
I guess the logical way to go about that is to determine which subjects often seriously upset people, and deem them worthy of warnings if they're talked about in-depth.
Who is going to determine the subjects?
Is this person prone to "triggering" easily, will they be able to be subjective?
A "trigger" on this site may not necessarily be labelled as a trigger on another website. How are we going to be consistent?
Do you realise how retarded this is yet?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#528,349
@previous (Handel !XFpaTU3A5E) > Who is going to determine the subjects?
Nobody in particular. The author would just try to get some idea of if a subject might upset quite a few people, and warn accordingly.
> Is this person prone to "triggering" easily, will they be able to be subjective?
If they're a minority, then they can't really be accounted for. If they're significant, then a brief warning beforehand might be appropriate. Regardless, it would be ideal if there were also some emphasis on helping them to become less sensitive, if appropriate. Though that may not be something that average writers on the internet cana address directly.
> A "trigger" on this site may not necessarily be labelled as a trigger on another website. How are we going to be consistent?
You can't be. Not entirely. But this doesn't mean that some effort can't be made to guage things, if only for a given writer's usual audience.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#528,387
I got into a huge argument on a gawker site, because someone demanded a trigger warning on an article about a woman confronting her molester. The title said something like "Graphic audio of adult woman confronting child molester" and people were still bitching and calling the author evil.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#528,397