Being triggered has nothing to do with being offended.

[Alvecia]

I'm not quite sure I understand the arguement against trigger warnings. To me it seems equivalent to saying "Hey, let's dop these firecrackers into a room of veterans suffering from PTSD and see what happens", all because you don't want to see those extra few seconds of warnings before a film.
Sure, people abuse the term, that's not in question. But to remove them because a few college kids are getting uppity about it seems counterproductive.

[Hirota]

I'm not quite sure I understand the arguement against trigger warnings. To me it seems equivalent to saying "Hey, let's dop these firecrackers into a room of veterans suffering from PTSD and see what happens", all because you don't want to see those extra few seconds of warnings before a film.
Sure, people abuse the term, that's not in question. But to remove them because a few college kids are getting uppity about it seems counterproductive.

This isn't about trivialising PTSD as suffered by veterans, but about those who would claim that words (not even offensive words) can be just as traumatising.

You should read up on the Little Albert experiment. It wasn't a very rigorous test and it has a number of issues that harm it's credibility when taken in isolation, but it demonstrated that something reasonably mundane (such as a rabbit or rat), when combined with a stimulus that one can associate with danger (in the test a loud noise, but a written warning would be similar) would cause distress to be associated with the mundane.

Then we also have more comprehensive studies which show that avoiding "triggers" tends to do more harm than good: http://www.nap.edu/read/11955/chapter/1

We also have the claim that trigger warnings are in fact triggering for some people and we shouldn't call them trigger warnings. Look at the editors note on this article

However, we use the phrase “content warning” instead of “trigger warning,” as the word “trigger” relies on and evokes violent weaponry imagery. This could be re-traumatizing for folks who have suffered military, police, and other forms of violence. So, while warnings are so necessary and the points in this article are right on, we strongly encourage the term “content warning” instead of “trigger warning.”

We have truly jumped the shark when the trigger warning supposedly in place to protect victims of trauma are triggered by the trigger warning. Instead of trying to protect people in cotton wool, to treat them as infants, how about we treat them as adults, and expect them to act as adults.

This isn't only about college kids having tantrums, although it's fair to say the vast majority of them are infantile college kids.

It's probably worth disclosing I have a strong opinion on this trigger warning nonsense - my signature says it all. That is not to say I am opposed to protecting and supporting the victims of trauma, but I am opposed to the definition some people have on what trauma actually is, and the best way to support true victims.

[Tybra]

I'm seeing this 'problem' being caused by the idealistic students that want to make the world a better place. With the era of institutionalized racism being replaced by one of more subtle social and cultural racism (taking this term as broad as I can stretch it), student are trying to find ways to fix this with concrete ways. They're not too different from those two girl who handed flyers on campus in the past (there were always those two girls, on any campus). However social media created a much larger audience and feedback that let us talk about it now, whereas in the past this might have been a one-day story told on campus grounds and then quickly forgotten. It makes me wonder: here we have the idealistic student wanting to make the world a better place, aside from our own cynicism, why are we discouraging them?

Then there's the public response that focuses on the triggers while taking that idealism behind it as "infantile" or "self-centered youth". I believe it is correct to think that triggers are something very personal and quite severe. Trigger warnings aren't the solution, and open discussion with uncomfortable themes might be a better solution, but let's not forget the intent that was behind it. After all do really want to raise another generation of cynics?

From my own college experiences, most of these trigger warnings were actual subjects of classes I took. During those classes teachers were always gave some room for discussion on the subjects. I've never noticed anyone being triggered, though there sure were the occasional awkward moments. Nevertheless those discussion were some of the most memorable moments of the classes.

[Alvecia]

I'm not quite sure I understand the arguement against trigger warnings. To me it seems equivalent to saying "Hey, let's dop these firecrackers into a room of veterans suffering from PTSD and see what happens", all because you don't want to see those extra few seconds of warnings before a film.
Sure, people abuse the term, that's not in question. But to remove them because a few college kids are getting uppity about it seems counterproductive.

This isn't about trivialising PTSD as suffered by veterans, but about those who would claim that words (not even offensive words) can be just as traumatising.

You should read up on the Little Albert experiment. It wasn't a very rigorous test and it has a number of issues that harm it's credibility when taken in isolation, but it demonstrated that something reasonably mundane (such as a rabbit or rat), when combined with a stimulus that one can associate with danger (in the test a loud noise, but a written warning would be similar) would cause distress to be associated with the mundane.

Then we also have more comprehensive studies which show that avoiding "triggers" tends to do more harm than good: http://www.nap.edu/read/11955/chapter/1

Not sure I can comment on that until I've read that study, so I'll get back to you if I get around to it. I do think that it may be possible for word all by themselves to trigger some traumas, but I'm more than aware that people are abusing the term and claiming triggers where there are only disagreements.

We also have the claim that trigger warnings are in fact triggering for some people and we shouldn't call them trigger warnings. Look at the editors note on this article

However, we use the phrase “content warning” instead of “trigger warning,” as the word “trigger” relies on and evokes violent weaponry imagery. This could be re-traumatizing for folks who have suffered military, police, and other forms of violence. So, while warnings are so necessary and the points in this article are right on, we strongly encourage the term “content warning” instead of “trigger warning.”

We have truly jumped the shark when the trigger warning supposedly in place to protect victims of trauma are triggered by the trigger warning. Instead of trying to protect people in cotton wool, to treat them as infants, how about we treat them as adults, and expect them to act as adults.

This I think is an example of taking a legitimate point to an absurd level.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm not quite sure I understand the arguement against trigger warnings. To me it seems equivalent to saying "Hey, let's dop these firecrackers into a room of veterans suffering from PTSD and see what happens", all because you don't want to see those extra few seconds of warnings before a film.
Sure, people abuse the term, that's not in question. But to remove them because a few college kids are getting uppity about it seems counterproductive.

Because there is a huge difference between active and passive censorship, which is really the crux of the entire damn debate.

Passive censorship is me making sure that I don't call you a fucking moron, because 1) It's rude, 2) the mods will hit me or throw me in the clink, and 3) it isn't conducive to continued conversation.

Active censorship is someone else coming up to me as I'm speaking and staring at me until I say something they feel might be rude to a particular subset of people, willfully ignoring my thesis to instead howl like a monkey over the fact that I'm a horrible person because I didn't consider the term "voluntary euthanasia" before saying it.

In colleges, throwing a syllabus at the students should be more than enough warning to explain to them that they're going to be learning about things. We shouldn't have to worry past that point. If you have serious, legitimate, trauma in your past (Hi, I'm one of those people) you are the one who is responsible for seeking assistance in handling those problems that may arise. The rest of the world isn't there to coddle (general) you, (general) you are not the center of the universe, (general) you are not the protagonist.

[Alvecia]

I'm not quite sure I understand the arguement against trigger warnings. To me it seems equivalent to saying "Hey, let's dop these firecrackers into a room of veterans suffering from PTSD and see what happens", all because you don't want to see those extra few seconds of warnings before a film.
Sure, people abuse the term, that's not in question. But to remove them because a few college kids are getting uppity about it seems counterproductive.

Because there is a huge difference between active and passive censorship, which is really the crux of the entire damn debate.

Passive censorship is me making sure that I don't call you a fucking moron, because 1) It's rude, 2) the mods will hit me or throw me in the clink, and 3) it isn't conducive to continued conversation.

Active censorship is someone else coming up to me as I'm speaking and staring at me until I say something they feel might be rude to a particular subset of people, willfully ignoring my thesis to instead howl like a monkey over the fact that I'm a horrible person because I didn't consider the term "voluntary euthanasia" before saying it.

In colleges, throwing a syllabus at the students should be more than enough warning to explain to them that they're going to be learning about things. We shouldn't have to worry past that point. If you have serious, legitimate, trauma in your past (Hi, I'm one of those people) you are the one who is responsible for seeking assistance in handling those problems that may arise. The rest of the world isn't there to coddle (general) you, (general) you are not the center of the universe, (general) you are not the protagonist.

I understand the distinction you're making between active/passive censorship but are you trying to say that trigger warnings fall under active, which is how it can be read as a response to my post, or are you just defining the two for clarification?

As to your last paragraph, if you consider the benefits/costs, it seems perfectly reasonable to have the professor mention a few words before starting a discussion or film. It costs little and may prevent some unnecessary psycological harm.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because there is a huge difference between active and passive censorship, which is really the crux of the entire damn debate.

Passive censorship is me making sure that I don't call you a fucking moron, because 1) It's rude, 2) the mods will hit me or throw me in the clink, and 3) it isn't conducive to continued conversation.

Active censorship is someone else coming up to me as I'm speaking and staring at me until I say something they feel might be rude to a particular subset of people, willfully ignoring my thesis to instead howl like a monkey over the fact that I'm a horrible person because I didn't consider the term "voluntary euthanasia" before saying it.

In colleges, throwing a syllabus at the students should be more than enough warning to explain to them that they're going to be learning about things. We shouldn't have to worry past that point. If you have serious, legitimate, trauma in your past (Hi, I'm one of those people) you are the one who is responsible for seeking assistance in handling those problems that may arise. The rest of the world isn't there to coddle (general) you, (general) you are not the center of the universe, (general) you are not the protagonist.

I understand the distinction you're making between active/passive censorship but are you trying to say that trigger warnings fall under active, which is how it can be read as a response to my post, or are you just defining the two for clarification?

As to your last paragraph, if you consider the benefits/costs, it seems perfectly reasonable to have the professor mention a few words before starting a discussion or film. It costs little and may prevent some unnecessary psycological harm.

Mostly just defining them so that people don't go all pedantry brigade on me.

Trigger warnings should be closer to passive censorship. They should be something that is done as a measure to ensure that people understand what they're getting into, a cost of doing business measure.

Trigger warnings should never be closer to active censorship. If a conversation naturally deviates from, say, banana plantations in tropical climates to colonial human trafficking, we shouldn't be stopping every thirty seconds to reconsider whether Jamal McBlackperson is going to suddenly flip his shit because someone didn't use the appropriate nom de jure for the Ghanans as opposed to the Nigerians.

A lot of "trigger warnings" become incredibly pointless when you're learning in a History class, because (and this shocks people) human beings are horrible.

[Alvecia]

I understand the distinction you're making between active/passive censorship but are you trying to say that trigger warnings fall under active, which is how it can be read as a response to my post, or are you just defining the two for clarification?

As to your last paragraph, if you consider the benefits/costs, it seems perfectly reasonable to have the professor mention a few words before starting a discussion or film. It costs little and may prevent some unnecessary psycological harm.

Mostly just defining them so that people don't go all pedantry brigade on me.

Trigger warnings should be closer to passive censorship. They should be something that is done as a measure to ensure that people understand what they're getting into, a cost of doing business measure.

Trigger warnings should never be closer to active censorship. If a conversation naturally deviates from, say, banana plantations in tropical climates to colonial human trafficking, we shouldn't be stopping every thirty seconds to reconsider whether Jamal McBlackperson is going to suddenly flip his shit because someone didn't use the appropriate nom de jure for the Ghanans as opposed to the Nigerians.

A lot of "trigger warnings" become incredibly pointless when you're learning in a History class, because (and this shocks people) human beings are horrible.

I'd agree. If ever "trigger warnings" approach active censorship, then they are no longer trigger warnings. Warnings by definition are passive.

[Iwassoclose]

*snaps fingers

[Alvecia]

*snaps fingers

I'm sure somebody, somewhere considers this a meaningful contribution to the discussion but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

[The Emerald Dawn]

*snaps fingers

I'm sure somebody, somewhere considers this a meaningful contribution to the discussion but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I was wondering if suddenly this was a poetry slam.

[Jamzmania]

*snaps fingers

Good God, man! Are you trying to trigger someone?

Jazz hands, people. Jazz hands.

[Hirota]

"OMG this is so offensive for chirophobics, you better delete that post you bigot! Show some tolerance!"

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Yeah yeah yeah it's the new generations that sucks.

OK Grandpa. Literally the same argument since Greece.

Watching a couple of internet memes about people being offended does mean you can then conclude an entire generation is fragile.

Oh aren't you just precious. Note the 'some' in there. Note the suggestion of trends. If this wasn't an issue, it wouldn't be being discussed. I know plenty of younger folk who aren't like that. Nowhere did I say all younger people are useless gits. If it were a 'grand', it'd be 'grandma', but I haven't reached that milepoint yet either, boyo. Methinks the lad doth protest overmuch. Did I ... hit a nerve?

[Hirota]

Did I ... hit a nerve?

You didn't insert a trigger warning for overly sensitive types. It's all your fault for triggering his outrage and lax reading skills.

[Ugatoo]

I honestly don't hate the idea of trigger warnings, it's a nice easy way to find out the contents of an article/video/etc. without having to go through the entire thing to find out what it's about. The thing that bothers me is how pretentious it seems, I'd prefer if it was marketed as more of a summery than as "Words that actually have no physical effect on you are going to hurt you".

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Did I ... hit a nerve?

You didn't insert a trigger warning for overly sensitive types. It's all your fault for triggering his outrage and lax reading skills.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. I keep forgetting how some people out there, of varying ages, simply cannot handle things. Like opposing ideas, not having the last word, being challenged in a post, getting schooled in threads, being called on their bullshit, simply being mistaken or even wrong - the list just goes on. One can usually tell by the vehemence and persistence of the responses where one's opponent may stand in the varying grades of 'literally, triggered' sorts, I've noticed. It can range from amusing, to ironic, to satirical, to downright sad, and everything in between. *nods sagely*

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm not quite sure I understand the arguement against trigger warnings. To me it seems equivalent to saying "Hey, let's dop these firecrackers into a room of veterans suffering from PTSD and see what happens", all because you don't want to see those extra few seconds of warnings before a film.
Sure, people abuse the term, that's not in question. But to remove them because a few college kids are getting uppity about it seems counterproductive.

Then no, you don't understand the argument against mandating trigger warnings. You might consider consulting the AAUP's statement on the issue.

Mandating "trigger warnings" for an assortment of "isms":

(A) Does not actually provide a significant benefit to students suffering PTSD.
(B) Hampers the important discussion of those ideas and systems of belief which need to be discussed.
(C) Promotes misunderstandings of how PTSD actually works.
(D) Keeps leading towards informally enforced but very real censorship.

[Hugdom]

They might not know the proper meaning for the term triggered, and maybe they ought to use a different word for the point they are trying to get across. However the intention is what matters most, and the intention is to equate that with being incredibly offended.

While the two terms can both be mutually exclusive, they can also be combined. And when used by people to allude to easily offended people that is what they normally mean.

[Gauthier]

Why even bother having movie ratings? They're just trigger warnings.

[Tahar Joblis]

Why even bother having movie ratings? They're just trigger warnings.

I will make three related comments.

First, the ratings system has issues. Serious issues.

Second, the ratings system ends at "this is for adults," because adults don't need to be protected from "adult" content.

Third, even with the increased detail of the ratings system, it is still nowhere near as specific or comprehensive as the demanded lists of trigger warnings.

[Shaggai]

You don't use medical reasons as a justification for not warning, because if it's medical then it's psychotherapy and you do not give psychotherapy to people without their consent.

Not providing a trigger warning isn't "psychotherapy" any more than providing trigger warnings is "psychotherapy."

I pointed this out before. The "trigger warning" movement is the one saying that professors, bloggers, et cetera are responsible for the mental health of their students, readers, et cetera, and that it is their responsibility to provide a therapeutic environment.

If you're justifying it medically, then yes, you're considering it psychotherapy.

[Hirota]

Why even bother having movie ratings? They're just trigger warnings.

Well, movie ratings are supposed to be there for the benefit of adults to protect the young children who would be scared and shit their nappies over being exposed to such nasty things like violence and sexual content
Whereas trigger warnings appear to be for young children who would be scared and shit their nappies over being exposed to such nasty things like words and different opinions in educational surroundings.
Yup, you are right, exactly the same.

[Hyfling]

Why even bother having movie ratings? They're just trigger warnings.

Well, movie ratings are supposed to be there for the benefit of adults to protect the young children who would be scared and shit their nappies over being exposed to such nasty things like violence and sexual content
Whereas trigger warnings appear to be for young children who would be scared and shit their nappies over being exposed to such nasty things like words and different opinions in educational surroundings.
Yup, you are right, exactly the same.

Young adults, but children nonetheless.

[Hirota]

Young adults, but children nonetheless.

If they acted like it, I'd call them young adults.