Trigger Warnings - Do they ever have a place or purpose?

[Salt Water Taffy]

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]

Yes, there is.

Anyone who uses trigger warnings unironically should be shot.

 

[REGENDarySumanai]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[AntiphonRhamnousios]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Duke Nukem]

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]

Triggered.

 

[Mungo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Demon]

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