# Trigger Warnings



## Salt Water Taffy (Feb 18, 2018)

So I read TV Tropes' article on "Triggers" the other day and, as you could guess, it was 95% bullshit (at least they acknowledged that not all suicidal cases are the same and that what sends some into hysterics is exactly what saves another.)

Problem is, the real world won't coddle you and if there's something, anything out there that drives you into hysterics just thinking about it, you need to see a therapist and you can't force other people to pander to your whims. Especially if you're triggered by something really innocuous like a balloon or something like that. That article forgot the rather large portion of people who call for trigger warnings that_ are_ using it to censor others' work and do want to erase depictions they don't agree with out of media. And, clearly this article doesn't agree with me, but I'd say if someone watched a major motion picture release made by people they've never met personally that had themes of suicide in it and then afterwards offed themselves, I'd say that no one who made the movie was to blame because they had no knowledge of this one person who'd be so affected by their work as to kill themselves.

What really irks me on that article is when they compare shitty Tumblr trigger warnings to seizure warnings on video games or theme park rides with flashing lights, because A) that's a physical illness not a mental one, and B) it's not cool or trendy to not get treatment for epilepsy in the same way Tumblr thinks it's cool and trendy to not get treatment for PTSD.

But I'm interested in the Deep Thoughts' opinion. Is it good Netiquette to include trigger warnings? Are there somethings that should be warned about and somethings that shouldn't? Are Tumblrinas afraid of their own shadows?


----------



## BILLY MAYS (Feb 18, 2018)

Yes, there is.

Anyone who uses trigger warnings unironically should be shot.


----------



## REGENDarySumanai (Feb 18, 2018)

Salt Water Taffy said:


> So I read TV Tropes' article on "Triggers" the other day and, as you could guess, it was 95% bullshit (at least they acknowledged that not all suicidal cases are the same and that what sends some into hysterics is exactly what saves another.)
> 
> Problem is, the real world won't coddle you and if there's something, anything out there that drives you into hysterics just thinking about it, you need to see a therapist and you can't force other people to pander to your whims. Especially if you're triggered by something really innocuous like a balloon or something like that. That article forgot the rather large portion of people who call for trigger warnings that_ are_ using it to censor others' work and do want to erase depictions they don't agree with out of media. And, clearly this article doesn't agree with me, but I'd say if someone watched a major motion picture release made by people they've never met personally that had themes of suicide in it and then afterwards offed themselves, I'd say that no one who made the movie was to blame because they had no knowledge of this one person who'd be so affected by their work as to kill themselves.
> 
> ...


Of course it's bullshit, it's TVTropes we are talking about. The same site that basically functions as a TGWTG themed hugbox. Also, trigger warnings are bullshit and tumblrinas are afraid of their own shadows.


----------



## Desire Lines (Feb 18, 2018)

Probably not the most popular opinion on this forum, but I think trigger warnings should exist for common, easily avoidable topics such as rape and torture. If you are triggered by black telephone booths or some bullshit like that, you shouldn't expect the world to change according to you, because everybody else is fine with it and removing it will only inconvinience everyone, but I can absolutely get why people might be uncomfortable with heavy themes like above. Just don't call them trigger warnings for fuck's sake


----------



## Uncle Warren (Feb 18, 2018)

Desire Lines said:


> Probably not the most popular opinion on this forum, but I think trigger warnings should exist for common, easily avoidable topics such as rape and torture. If you are triggered by black telephone booths or some bullshit like that, you shouldn't expect the world to change according to you, because everybody else is fine with it and removing it will only inconvinience everyone, but I can absolutely get why people might be uncomfortable with heavy themes like above. Just don't call them trigger warnings for fuck's sake


Problem is that people don't generally label shit as TW because a topic will cause people to lose their shit. They label it because it attracts people to it, so they can read it and be outraged. Which justifies their trigger as they smash their face on the keyboard. It's essentially like if you want to clickbait the shit out of your article, write it in a way that is shocking and appalling.

That being said, REAL PTSD doesn't get triggered by words. It's by sounds or certain actions, or looks of certain people. Reading shit doesn't trigger vietnam flashbacks.


----------



## Flustercuck (Feb 18, 2018)

this topic triggers me please put a trigger warning on this because I am literally too fragile to stay alive


----------



## AntiphonRhamnousios (Feb 18, 2018)

The term trigger has been abused and perverted in my opinion, very much like the term "nourishing" as it is used by the Fat Acceptance Movement. But even when we only take a look at its original definition, the number of possible triggers is still too large and individual. One cannot pander to all possible legit triggers, let alone to all SJW's ones out there. And if we are to say that trigger warnings for some common things that "upset" people are to be used, where do the stop? One might be upset at reading about the rape, an alcoholic can go back to drinking when hearing about booze and a lonely person could commit suicide when seeing happy couples. 

I do not think it's the task of society to take every possible precaution, but that of the individual to manage living and navigating in this world.
We do not put styrofoam on every corner of a public table so children are safe, we teach children not to run blindly around while in public and don't leave them alone until they can do so.


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Feb 18, 2018)

Trigger warnings are questionable even for actual PTSD victims, exposure and desensitization seem overall better than avoidance. 

If it's for tumblrinas they're straight up bullshit.


----------



## Strewth (Feb 18, 2018)

The thing I don't understand is when someone posts an article that literally just has the word 'rape' in it, and slaps a big thing at the top saying 'TW: RAPE'.
Like, if someone is that easily triggered, wouldn't they just be triggered by the trigger warning?


----------



## Sylvie Paula Paula (Feb 18, 2018)

Major powerlevel here, but it's relevant to the topic.

I go to a DBT program during the days, and there are a lot of women from all sorts of backgrounds in there (it's women only, but trans people are allowed in). Some of them have PTSD that's considered more "acceptable" since it came from war, rape, etc. Others - who perhaps don't have PTSD - tend to use the term "trigger" pretty liberally - ie, saying they were "triggered" into a panic attack or some sort of mental breakdown. Something about that just doesn't feel right, because unless my own PTSD is fake or I'm a moron, triggers cause flashbacks. Overstimulation of the senses or mind - which usually causes these breakdowns - isn't exactly a "trigger". You can't really slap a trigger warning on something that might overstimulate the senses or brain, especially since different people can be overwhelmed by different things.

But regarding the actual defintion of trigger for people who have actual PTSD, and not just the more woobified defintion of it: there are certain types of triggers where exposure therapy simply cannot work - those are where having PTSD is "understandable" to those who don't have it. Trigger warnings for that type of stuff work. At the same time, some triggers are EXTREMELY obscure or so rooted into our daily lives that the only thing that can be done is exposure therapy. For others, where their PTSD comes from a traumatic event that took place at a specific place or doing a specific thing, it can take a lot of time for them to warm up to the concept of exposure therapy. Forcing it on them, or chastising them for being unable to cope with it, can create a more negative reaction to it in the future; you need to find the "balance" of not trying to make a safe space for them, and exposing them to something specific that might trigger them in small doses.

So TL;DR : It really depends.


----------



## AnOminous (Feb 18, 2018)

Desire Lines said:


> Probably not the most popular opinion on this forum, but I think trigger warnings should exist for common, easily avoidable topics such as rape and torture.



This is more or less my opinion.  I don't think they should be called "trigger warnings" necessarily, because that phrase has been entirely ruined, but if there's obviously going to be content that many people will actually find disturbing, and there's no good reason _not_ to warn in advance, I don't see the harm in doing it.  I'd probably do it myself if I were teaching something I knew would have disturbing content like, for example, the horrifying rape in Deliverance.

I don't think it should be obligatory, but I do think it is at least polite in some circumstances.

Rape in particular is a fairly obvious example of one where even a reasonable person who has that in their past might be understandably upset by being suddenly confronted with images of it.

And again, this isn't a "there should be a law" thing so much as a "don't be a jerk" thing.


----------



## RG 448 (Feb 18, 2018)

Trigger warnings give the enemy an unfair advantage.  It’s like putting a sign in front of your minefield.


----------



## Duke Nukem (Feb 18, 2018)

Testaclese Maximus said:


> Trigger warnings give the enemy an unfair advantage.  It’s like putting a sign in front of your minefield.



There should be no trigger warnings, no coddling SJW millennials, and no fucking pandering to these types of people. If anything people who get "triggered" by stupid shit should be trolled to death.


----------



## Piss Clam (Feb 18, 2018)

Triggered.


----------



## Mungo (Feb 18, 2018)

For things like news articles about rape/torture/school shootings, sure, but not for generally violent content. For works of art, I think it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on how the content is presented and how obvious it is that the work has the objectionable content. I would never begrudge, say, a trigger warning placed in front of testimony from the Larry Nassar trials or in front of a TV broadcast of the aforementioned _Deliverance,_ but if you know that something like _Law And Order: SVU_ or a rape-revenge movie has content that's gonna upset you and you watch it anyway, I think that that's your own fault for watching, not the broadcaster's/distributor's for not informing you of something that should be completely obvious. 

In short, I can't really object to them for the most disturbing of material, but people really should respect the intelligence of people who need/"need" trigger warnings enough to assume that they have common sense. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of progressives who would advocate for such things don't respect the groups they are fighting for enough to assume that they can function as normal human beings.


----------



## Salt Water Taffy (Feb 18, 2018)

I suppose you could argue that "Viewer Discretion Advised" warnings are a form of trigger warnings, and think of how those are usually worded. Compare:

"Warning. The following program contains scenes of graphic violence, drug use, and sexual situations. Viewer discretion is advised."

with:

"Trigger Warning: gore, drugs, and rape"

The former is worded so that the viewer can decide for themselves whether or not they want to watch the program while the later implies the viewer is a scared child who can't and/or shouldn't handle adult material.


----------



## Brackets (Feb 18, 2018)

Sperglord Dante said:


> Trigger warnings are questionable even for actual PTSD victims, exposure and desensitization seem overall better than avoidance.



Exposure and desensitization are ultimately more productive than avoidance, but only really under the guidance of a professional, not some stranger on the internet's opinion. My rationale is that it's not up to me to determine whether someone needs exposure to depictions of rape or whatever to get over their trauma, it's up to their therapist and, ultimately, themselves. The warning gives them the choice whether to confront whatever's associated with their trauma; they can be exposed to graphic things at their own prescribed pace, and that's probably better for their recovery in the long run. 

I think that trigger warnings are important, but really only in particular contexts, like spaces where common "triggers" are unexpected, or support contexts where people can actually be really affected by certain content, rather than just mildly offended or disgusted (which I think is what "trigger warnings" have been reduced to in some circles). For example, a trigger warning for gore might be useful in an art gallery, but not so useful in a medical textbook. Likewise, a trigger warning for "food" is probably extremely useful in an eating disorder recovery forum where thinking about food can prompt a binge or flashback or dissociation or something like that, but not necessarily in a restaurant menu. 

The rationale behind putting trigger warnings everywhere is that it's impossible to know who will be aversely affected by what at any given time. For the most part, that's totally fine with me. I would hate to fuck up some stranger's day because I sprung a graphic description on them without any warning. I'd also hate to have a productive conversation derail in, say, a classroom setting, because someone starts having a panic attack. That said, I think they're sometimes taken way too far, and it's simply redundant and a waste of time to list out 10+ words that could mildly upset someone before discussing them in passing.


----------



## Molo (Feb 18, 2018)

Idk I don't mind it why should I care what upsets people. If someone feels so strongly over something so small on a film or show or whatever then a trigger warrning can't hurt if the thing upsetting them is small



Spoiler: Autism



i set my phone alarm to the sound of an old phone which doesn't sound so bad but If I'm watching a to show it playing a game and an old phone starts ringing in one of them it left makes me uncomfortable and on edge


----------



## Kari Kamiya (Feb 18, 2018)

Strewth said:


> The thing I don't understand is when someone posts an article that literally just has the word 'rape' in it, and slaps a big thing at the top saying 'TW: RAPE'.
> Like, if someone is that easily triggered, wouldn't they just be triggered by the trigger warning?



That's always confused me, too. Like if the person with that specific trigger (or hell, a phobia) is so sensitive and broken that by just even _hearing_/_reading_ the word of the thing that triggers them it causes them to "literally shake", they have legitimate issues to work out, and it's probably not because they went through such a thing to warrant such PTSD.



Salt Water Taffy said:


> I suppose you could argue that "Viewer Discretion Advised" warnings are a form of trigger warnings, and think of how those are usually worded. Compare:
> 
> "Warning. The following program contains scenes of graphic violence, drug use, and sexual situations. Viewer discretion is advised."
> 
> ...



Pretty much this. But I think the major difference is that the "viewer discretion advised" warnings--and by extension, movie ratings--are there for legal reasons, maybe also done as an agreement with the network that they'll allow the episode to air with nary an edit (but most likely because they _had_ to make some cuts and the final cut was _still_ too graphic and they couldn't botch it further), they just have to let the audience (and censors) know. But I'm thinking chances are it's to protect themselves from the pearl-clutchers and other moral guardians who'll come break their doors down even if they haven't watched a single episode of the show.

Meanwhile, you are now having those same pearl-clutchers trying to use that to their advantage, except they're missing the whole point as to _why_ warning labels exist in the first place and that _not_ _everything_ needs to be warned about in advance.


----------



## carltondanks (Feb 18, 2018)

my step dad suffers from PTSD when he was in the iraqi war against suddam hussein. i've only seen him get offended from an apparent trigger once, and even then it wasn't that bad really. i'd imagine if he went to iraq, he'd see stuff that would make him hallucinate and all the other things PTSD people suffer. some for artillery strikes and people getting shot and dying right in front of him.

if you want to know what PTSD is like, play spec ops the line


----------



## SeaPancake (Feb 21, 2018)

I feel like we supply our own trigger warnings in everyday conversation when recommending or talking about certain things. "Don't see this movie, it has X, Y, and Z." From our interactions with others we can begin to gauge what they're able to handle. Assuming that everyone can handle ultra-violent content is stupid, but assuming that everyone won't be able to handle child abuse or mentions of rape is equally stupid. The only trigger I think I possess, if at all, is the sight of syringes being inserted into skin, but such a thing is rarely shown out of the blue. Most shows and movies set up the event by filling it with liquid or having the person hold it up to the camera before stabbing it into someone, so I know when to look away. 

This isn't something you can't do during, say, a lecture in school because it'd make you look like an idiot, but I remember in school we had to send forms home for our parents to sign before watching certain films because of the content they had. Whether the parents or the kids would be triggered was solved in that capacity. One girl was consistently excused if the film featured war, sex, or offhand criticisms of religion. Pretty lame.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Feb 22, 2018)

I remember a time before trigger warnings.

People can live without them.


----------



## Orc Girls Make Due (Feb 23, 2018)

Sylvie Paula Paula said:


> Major powerlevel here, but it's relevant to the topic.
> 
> I go to a DBT program during the days, and there are a lot of women from all sorts of backgrounds in there (it's women only, but trans people are allowed in). Some of them have PTSD that's considered more "acceptable" since it came from war, rape, etc. Others - who perhaps don't have PTSD - tend to use the term "trigger" pretty liberally - ie, saying they were "triggered" into a panic attack or some sort of mental breakdown. Something about that just doesn't feel right, because unless my own PTSD is fake or I'm a moron, triggers cause flashbacks. Overstimulation of the senses or mind - which usually causes these breakdowns - isn't exactly a "trigger". You can't really slap a trigger warning on something that might overstimulate the senses or brain, especially since different people can be overwhelmed by different things.
> 
> ...


This is exactly right and there are many led arcticles on such a thing .

In fact, I recently had to do reading on traumatic death and how it affects PTSD victims. 

If say coming from a war or surviving an accident your friend was in, you get a heavy guilt that eventually turns into certain triggers as it were. Being anywhere near the object of guilt or anything reminding of the person can cause flashback and mental or catatonic break in a person. 

That is the average PTSD victims reaction to a non-copable event. Usually repressed until brought on by smell, word or action. Sometimes object. 

What Tumblr and munchies have done to the medical reasoning and word is just a bastardized slur at this point. Less and less people are being taken seriously when going to psychiatrists and therapist when trying to explain a trigger.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 23, 2018)

In theory they're not a bad idea, but they became almost like a contest to see who had the most triggers. You'd get people on Tumblr complaining because they were triggered by the colour red and no one put a warning for that, or something equally stupid. It got to the point where you had people complaining about the phrase "trigger warning" because they were triggered by the reminder that they had triggers and they needed to be warned, so you got that "content note" bullshit.


----------



## scared sheep (Feb 23, 2018)

Dunno if someone has already said this, but there is some merit to them.

Let’s say I’m having a rough day. Suddenly, I come across something with extreme content. I should be able to pick myself up and move along, right?

Well...

Worst case scenario, the content ends up triggering an anxiety attack, which progresses to a panic attack, and now I’m completely unable to do anything constructive for 24 hours, there’s vomit on the floor, and my sleep schedule is fucked.

Once again, this is worst case scenario, but if you could avoid it, wouldn’t you?

Let’s take another example.

College class. We’ve been assigned a movie that has a rape scene. Unwarned, this may cause flashbacks, etc. but with a warning, with the knowledge going in to expect it, the person can watch it mentally prepared, with lessened consequences.

This is the power of “trigger warnings.” They’re like how a pedocow will usually have the fact that they’re a pedo in the subtitle. If you don’t want to look at a pedo, you can avoid it, right? It’s a warning that this content contains something that may cause a bad reaction, so proceed with caution. Think of it like a nut warning on food. Except it’s for your mental health.

Of course, you can abuse the concept, but you can take literally anything too far. So... that argument is, by itself, silly.


----------



## de_DEVIL_tails (Feb 23, 2018)

No


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Feb 26, 2018)

Maybe what we need is an SJW specific browser plugin that displays a massive splash screen reading "TW: Everything" anytime you open it then goes on to just blackbar censor every line of text.


----------



## Wraith (Feb 26, 2018)

We used to have some common sense trigger warnings in a way, they were called movie ratings. They were meant to separate people who didn't want to see a certain class of film because of violence and da sexy time, and also keep them out of the hands of da childrens. It was a maturity and supposed moral component to things.
Now it's just pansy little bitches whose crap lefty beliefs are so wrong and fragile they can't handle opposing points of view. It's a form of narcissism and demand for other people to protect you from having who you are and what nonsense you believe challenged. They're so delicate and mentally deranged they can't analyze a situation, and mentally come up with a thought process to deal with the situation at hand, a form of mental breakdown that would normally get people the straight jacket thirty years ago.
Just think of anybody who had a _real_ traumatic experience like watching a loved one die in a horrible way, war PTSD or something, and then take a long time to heal from it. That's a real trauma, but with time things that would remind them of that situation can heal them. These little bitches are sheltered little pukes who have been indoctrinated into stupid, and it reminds me of a movie. Anybody see Dr. Strangelove? That one doc who kept wanting to do a nazi salute or whatever (it's been a while since I've seen it, so if someone wants to correct me, please do,) reminds me of these whiners. They've been conditioned like freaking Pavlov's damn dog not to be able to respond to opposing stimuli, and just cry like a bleating sheep who sees the wolf or lion about ready to munch on it's hide. There's no toughening, no mental condition, nothing that even has a semblance of maturity.
In essence, grown up 2 year olds, and nobody wants to be around them. They only end up making Sonichu comics and scream on live stream about how they are "pushing buttons" and whine about "online lag."

But then again, that's just a guess from the top of my wraithy head.


EDIT: - - Just dealt with this. This video (made by an old nasty white male who is charismatic, oh noes!) can help deal with the whininess.


----------



## One Man Bland (Mar 3, 2018)

I think two huge problems that have come out of the current trigger warning debacle is that they often get mixed up with the concept of content warnings, and most of the uber SHE Tumblrinas who demand them the most can never seen to agree what constitutes as a sufficient amount of "warning."

Usually when people point to stuff like movie, television, and video game ratings, what they're actually describing are content warnings. The biggest distinction being that they tend to give a very broad idea of the nature of the content and the estimated age demographic that content would be best for, but outside of that the audience is expected to decide to view it at their own risk based on the rating and the description of the material. For instance if you're go to see an R-rated slasher film, you're probably going in with expectation that you'll see some violence but the details on the exact kind of violence will vary. Trigger warnings however are often meant to be much more specific because triggers are usually related to really specific events. Which also means that it's often impossible to account for every trigger because you can't predict that someone is going to freak out over a certain song being played in the film or because someone said a certain line of dialogue because it reminded them of a traumatic event, and that level of micro-managing shouldn't be made the responsibility of the creator. 

The other issue I found, especially in fan communities, is that no one who advocates for trigger warnings can seem to agree where to draw the line. There's often a demand that creators take it on themselves to factor in for every bit of upsetting content and warm for it, even at the expense of their storytelling, and it's kind of what leads to nonsense like "tag your pomegranates" or instances where common sense is thrown out the window where you have people crying about how "you didn't explicitly _say _that this prison/war/gang story would have VIOLENCE in it!!!" to the creator rather than realizing that such a situation is entirely on them. This same attitude I've seen also lead to over-warning for everything where you'll see a big fat "TW: BLOOD" over some character having what barely passed for a nosebleed or things equally tame where any reasonable person would think that anyone so sensitive wouldn't be on the internet.

I've also noticed that trigger warning discussions inevitably circle back to the question of "Well if this content could potentially upset/trigger someone, why should it be allowed to exist at all?" Which is never a productive discussion since and some people have noted that it tends to lead to people foregoing even content warnings just to avoid people who think that it's not enough to just tag warnings.

TL; DR as people have said, fine in theory and the content warnings/ratings that currently exist work well enough to cover the broad areas, but attempting to make creators account for every potentially upsetting moment in their work is a fruitless effort that often leads to either sanitizing fiction to the point of being patronizing or looking to simply making such content off limits.


----------



## SeaPancake (Mar 4, 2018)

One Man Bland said:


> The other issue I found, especially in fan communities, is that no one who advocates for trigger warnings can seem to agree where to draw the line. There's often a demand that creators take it on themselves to factor in for every bit of upsetting content and warm for it, even at the expense of their storytelling, and it's kind of what leads to nonsense like "tag your pomegranates" or instances where common sense is thrown out the window where you have people crying about how "you didn't explicitly _say _that this prison/war/gang story would have VIOLENCE in it!!!" to the creator rather than realizing that such a situation is entirely on them. This same attitude I've seen also lead to over-warning for everything where you'll see a big fat "TW: BLOOD" over some character having what barely passed for a nosebleed or things equally tame where any reasonable person would think that anyone so sensitive wouldn't be on the internet.



Archive of Our Own, the place where you go to post your filthy RPF smut that 50,000 people apparently want to read, is nuts with tags. There will be tags upon tags upon tags upon *tags *detailing every single little thing that could be in a story. I've seen some stories where I lost all motivation or interest to read it because the whole story was essentially told in the tags. If it's a stand-alone, I guess I understand - sometimes you just want a little sweet and fluffy story to read. If it's porn, yes I want certain things tagged - I don't want to click on a story only to be confronted with a Haikyuu!! adaptation of A Serbian Film. 

The purpose of a book or a story is that you *don't *know what's going to happen in it. Some things should be warned for, like really disgusting or gross things, but if you expect a tag for every little icky thing that is realistically and canonically rape-filled, murderous, and abusive as its source material (i.e. Game of Thrones, Hannibal)...I don't know what to tell you. I guess some people like to be warned about everything, or they want a story that has specifically this, this, and this like a Subway sandwich, but what's the point of reading a story if I know exactly how the relationship or story will progress?


----------



## One Man Bland (Mar 4, 2018)

SeaPancake said:


> Archive of Our Own, the place where you go to post your filthy RPF smut that 50,000 people apparently want to read, is nuts with tags. There will be tags upon tags upon tags upon *tags *detailing every single little thing that could be in a story. I've seen some stories where I lost all motivation or interest to read it because the whole story was essentially told in the tags. If it's a stand-alone, I guess I understand - sometimes you just want a little sweet and fluffy story to read. If it's porn, yes I want certain things tagged - I don't want to click on a story only to be confronted with a Haikyuu!! adaptation of A Serbian Film.
> 
> The purpose of a book or a story is that you *don't *know what's going to happen in it. Some things should be warned for, like really disgusting or gross things, but if you expect a tag for every little icky thing that is realistically and canonically rape-filled, murderous, and abusive as its source material (i.e. Game of Thrones, Hannibal)...I don't know what to tell you. I guess some people like to be warned about everything, or they want a story that has specifically this, this, and this like a Subway sandwich, but what's the point of reading a story if I know exactly how the relationship or story will progress?


Ao3 is definitely the most guilty when it comes to over-tagging. Though I think it's more because of that Subway-style "have it your way" mentality you described more than anything due to the nature of Ao3's organization and search system. Fangirls can be weirdly picky about their fanfics and OTPs, to the point that you'll occassionally see one throw a massive bitchfit over a fic not explicitly tagging which character in their yaoi OTP is gonna be the "top" or not whether or not a certain sex act is or isn't included. Which might make sense for something that revolves around specific kinks/fetishes or tags like "slow burn" that are basically code for "this is gonna be several chapters long" but it often gets to a point of basically asking to be spoiled before you even open the tab. 

While it's definitely related to the current trend of over-warning, it's kind of a "chicken or egg" situation as to whether general fangirl pickiness hijacked the concept of triggers to make more demands or if the paranoia of tagging made people feel obligated to tag everything to be safe. One thing that I've never seen anyone who advocates for trigger warnings adequately explain is why necessitate for several specific warnings, and thus give an author shit if they happen to miss one, when a single broad tag will cover all the same bases. Why demand the inclusion of tags like "gun violence" or "eye trauma" or "stab wounds" when those are all covered under "Graphic Depictions of Violence" or "Gore"? Why should something already listed under the genre of "Psychological Horror" also be asked to include a tag for every element and/or phobia that's already included under that umbrella? Hell, why does something require additional tags for every sex act that will be included in a rape scene when it's already been tagged as "Rape/Sexual Violence"? 

The only explanation I've come across is that some people might be able to handle some elements that fall under the same category but not others, but frankly I can't see a rape victim browsing Ao3 and going "Oh thank goodness there's only _anal _rape in this!" or someone looking up a SAW crossover or a torture fic and then bailing out because, while they could handle the disembowelment and dismemberment, the fact that the author didn't list eye gouging is just _too much _for them. It's especially dubious when you see a fic that is listed as having all sorts of horrendous torture and gore, but then tags felt the need to include shit like "TW: Gendered Slurs" because one character calls another character a bitch or something.



Spoiler: Example. Really wish I was making this up






 
Good thing they specified that there's ableism and bad words in this fic full of rape and torture!



Although, ironically, Ao3 also gets tons of shit for its extensive tagging system by SJWs/Tumblrinas, the biggest criticism being that "They aren't warnings, they're advertisements!" and therefore that content should be banned. Which, while partly true, seems to negate the demands for trigger warnings in the first place.


----------



## KerryDixon9 (Mar 4, 2018)

On Kiwi Farms spoiler tags are often used as trigger warnings. Let's just imagine that a Brianna and Frank Wu sex tape and pics are leaked. That shit's going to be hidden behind ten spoiler tags because the content is so horrific you're going to have to click on those spoiler tags to prove you willingly abused your eyes in that way. So when you're deal with true horrific content it is the best for everyone to provide a warning.

Trigger warnings for SJW delicate flowers? Fuck them they're fucking cunts and they deserve triggering.


----------



## ghostmice (Mar 15, 2018)

I feel they have a time and place, as a concept they aren't bad, they're just a little notice saying "hey! this stuffs in the thing your about to watch!" from what i've seen they also aren't always put as a safeguard against people fucking REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE'ing over being offended by something, often times they're put as a little "hey this probably won't upset you but a quick warning that this has 'insert topic' in it" so people can mentally prepare themselves. Personally though I do feel like they get out of hand sometimes but taking a "TRIGGERED MILLENNIALS DESERVE TO BE TRIGGERED" stance on the topic does nothing but make yourself seem like kind of a fucking asshole. I can understand where people are coming from when they say they feel talked down to, I think a simple rebranding would help with that, or adding it into "viewer discretion advised" warnings, something just detailing "this thing your gonna watch has rape and graphic torture scenes" but idk i'm also partial to the topic because of some background stuff


----------



## Henry Wyatt (Mar 15, 2018)

Yes, but they are over used by tumblr.

An acceptable usage: Warning this article contains content that may be upsetting.

Warning: this article is NSFW and contains a picture of an autistic trans womens taint

Not acceptable: GRAPEFRUIT THAT LOOKS LIKE GORE


----------



## Jazz never died! (Mar 3, 2021)

Good god is this thread dead. I feel the need to bring this thread back up because i just watched a youtube video that had a trigger warning for a poorly aged skit of Doug Walker's back when he was making demo reel. When i point out that trigger warnings are childish and coddles people because real triggers happen unexpectedly over innocuous shit or when your at your breaking point. I find that trigger warnings are ineffective due to it being too individual on the persons will/sanity. I would know from personal experience. Here is a bad example of a trigger warning



.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Mar 4, 2021)

Common sense is key.  I'd like a heads up if one of my teachers was going to show a snuff film or some shit like that.*  Or on another board, there's this guy who had a habit of just slipping in seriously graphic sexual descriptions or stories out of nowhere into his posts, and the mods finally said, "you know, TMI, people are tired of hearing about it?"  He liked to give these "hypotheticals", but after awhile, often he'd just drop in some kind of really out there sexually violent crap, and people would be like, "da'fuck?  Could you at least put a NSFW, cuz, you know, I read this at work?"  Or whatever.  Or he liked to just start talking about his own sex life.  (You know the type).  
He got all butthurt then and stomped off.  Not so much a trigger warning, as "tmi, dude!"  

I think it's just common courtesy, because you know, someone could be reading in public, or on a shared computer, so you don't want to all of a sudden click on something and have your teacher or your boss see you come upon something that's really graphic.  
BUT...sometimes trigger warnings do go too far.  Nobody wants to just happen upon _A Serbian Film_, or pictures of puppies being thrown into a woodchipper.  But giving trigger warnings for something like a fender bender, a hockey fight, etc.  Those college kids who flipped out when people wrote "TRUMP" in chalk on the sidewalk, for example.  EVERYONE was making fun of them.  They were laughing about it on _The Daily Show_, _The Nightly Show_,  (Larry Wilmore suggested some of them were trying to get out of their midterms) the right, the left, etc.  


And quite honestly, there are some places you should know better to visit when you're at work. *coughtheFarmscough*




*Or at least the time we had to do an I-search and this one vegan chick (a real PETA type) did her's on the slaughterhouse industry and showed us all an extremely graphic video of a pig being slaughtered. Now I suspect it was heavily edited (it should not take twenty minutes to slaughter one freaking pig). But I really did NOT need to see that without SOME prior warning. Especially as this was right around lunch time.


----------



## Bandicam Watermark (Mar 12, 2021)

Trigger warnings, and by extension "content warnings" have started to become more and more mainstream, especially on Twitter.

In short, my thoughts are that they aren't bad, but trying to police or "harass" others on using them is stupid, and the misuse of them is only bad depending on their approach; nothing is wrong with letting others know that they want to share something a bit more serious or graphic, but the idea of calling out others for not using them shows the bigger issue with many people who use them. They're advocating the "I'm offended and you need to do what I say or else I'll get my 50 followers to attack you " type of life, the one that people here on this site mostly loath, besides the fact it can make for some interesting lolcows. The issue with trigger warnings I dont think is what the borderline usage is, but rather what people who have heard of it want to use if for. I wouldn't mind using them myself even, but the idea that things need to be policed to a level that before you post something online that you "_need_" to put them before you post is not what they should be used for; online strangers aren't here to cater, they're here to do some random shit that they'll forget about in about 5-10 years, they aren't required to use them and they dont care as much as your ass wants them to, deal with it.


----------



## dirt lamb (Mar 13, 2021)

_back in my day_ we used the word "disclaimer" and it wasn't for pansy shit. the term trigger warning seems like something to stir someone up before even saying what the warning is about. it's stupid and i hate it.


----------



## Serbian Peacekeepers (Mar 15, 2021)

If its a warning for legit shit like flashing lights or ear rape than yeah , put 1000 of them in your video.


----------



## GenociderSyo (Mar 15, 2021)

Working in mental health we teach people to know their triggers so they can use their coping skills with them. This is because its healthier to know how to deal with triggers and how to deal with them unexpectedly since life is not meant to come with trigger warnings. WRAP is what is mainly used now to set up plans to deal with things.

The funny thing is the words in the trigger warnings would be a trigger in of themselves if someone was truly that affected by them.

Though as others have said there are things that should be warned about such as epilepsy warnings in things, its a weird line but most trigger warnings you see in tumblr, etc. are people just playing a game and not actually people who are triggered.


----------

