A ban on Trigger Warnings [discussion]

[Tano]

Your definition of "no discussion" is rather odd.

What's there to discuss? I thought it was made apparent that trigger warnings aren't going to be banned, and it simply seems like a bunch of back and forth snark about people either being too sensitive or not sensitive enough.

I have yet to see any sort of consensus made.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Your definition of "no discussion" is rather odd.

What's there to discuss? I thought it was made apparent that trigger warnings aren't going to be banned, and it simply seems like a bunch of back and forth snark about people either being too sensitive or not sensitive enough.

I have yet to see any sort of consensus made.

Consensus? On NationStates?!?

[ALMF]

I, along a few others have expressed our displeasure with a certain user trying to import the idiotic idea of posting "trigger warnings" on a thread, implying that people are so weak that the mere mention of anything slightly discomforting could send people into a panic attack. I for one, would not like to see this place turn into Tumblr.

So what say you, great folks of NS?

Don't need an all out ban, but they absolutely must not be made mandatory even for the worst content (which arguably is already limited somewhat by nationstates rules). I think if people want to self censor well technically that's covered under free speech. Again as long as they aren't a requirement or added by mods without poster permssion I have no real problem with them remain totally optional.

Right out of the gate!!

[Coffee Cakes]

That's it.

(Image)

As of now, no trigger warnings. No 'check your' bs.

I would love it if these two things got banned.

Who do I have to pay to make it happen?

[Oaledonia]

Have we all forgotten that trigger warnings are not and will not be mandatory, or are we griping just for the sake of griping?

Garish text is garish.

[Grenartia]

What the hell?

Someone wants me to ANTICIPATE what is going to piss some whiny person off? That's just...

No. Its called having an option to do so if you wish. Also, in most cases, its hardly "some whiny person".

[Grenartia]

This forum doesn't revolve around you. Does it not occur to you that many people aren't capable of perfectly predicting what an OP's contents will be based on the thread title alone?

Its hardly an insult to your intellectual ability, its a common fucking courtesy to others.

Yes, NSG doesn't revolve around me. 1. No, it doesn't revolve around people so fundamentally different to me that it is reasonable to assume that, given the typical thread title in general is as lacking in clarity as "security guard beats student in wheelchair", they cannot determine that potentially triggering material will be in there.

2. Which brings us back to the major point, when thread titles aren't so clear (see the "My problem with feminism" example, although such a thread would probably be locked for being to bloggy these days) trigger warnings do have a point and using them in situations where this is not so merely devalues the concept.

3. Oh, and perfect predicting is not needed and is also impossible. Consider that a misrepresentation of my argument to reduce it to a form more easily dismissed. Also, perhaps pay close attention to how I say what I say. 4. I am perfectly aware why trigger warnings are used, hence "reflexively opposed".

1. And?

2. Yes, it is not unreasonable to say that there has been at least one (and most likely are, and will be) thread which contains a discussion on a highly sensitive topic, and the title of said thread does not indicate the subject matter (ex: a title that reads "You're not going to believe this shit!", which turns out to be a description of a woman getting brutally gangraped, and her assailants getting off scott free even with DNA evidence proving they did it). That is what trigger warnings are perfect for. To say nothing of the fact that we're not even proposing that trigger warnings be mandatory. You don't even HAVE to use them even if your thread title doesn't describe the topic. This anti-trigger warning bullshit is just some sorry assed excuse to rail against the unicorn of political correctness. [/rant]

That wasn't directed at you specifically, but rather the others who don't get that point.

3. Except it is needed, because even one misunderstanding of a thread's subject based on the title justifies a trigger warning.

4. Consider it my reflexive opposition to reflexive opposition to basic common courtesy.

Have we all forgotten that trigger warnings are not and will not be mandatory, or are we griping just for the sake of griping?

I'm pretty sure its a combination of griping and, as I said above, trying to rail against something seen as PC (even though PC is about as real as a unicorn).

Trigger warning are quite stupid.

Only if you totally misunderstand the point behind their proper usage.

Hell, what "triggers" would be on a NationStates post anyway?

I don't know, shit like rape, assault, domestic violence, etc. Seems rather fucking obvious to me.

Your definition of "no discussion" is rather odd.

No, I think he's on to something, though the exact phrasing was a bit off. The conversation boils down to:
"I think there should be a ban on trigger warnings!"
"But almost nobody is using them."
"...Well, they might. And that makes me angry!"
"But it's not really doing any harm."
"I don't like it. It makes me feel insulted on a personal level."
"That the OP wanted to be considerate?"
"They had an ulterior motive. We don't need 'em! "
And I feel like all the meaningful points have been made.

But you don't understand!

That's it.

(Image)

As of now, no trigger warnings. No 'check your' bs.

I would love it if these two things got banned.

Who do I have to pay to make it happen?

So, remind me again what the problem is with giving a (totally voluntary, I might add) warning about potentially upsetting content?

Also, point out a single unironic instance of "check your privilege" being used. I challenge you. I dare you. I double dog doctor dare you.

[Dakini]

If you don't want to use trigger warnings in your thread, you don't have to use trigger warnings. If other people are aware that someone might have a problem with the content of a thread or a post then what does it matter to you if they use them?

The problem with trigger warnings is that of culture. Tumblr is not a place of debate due to the trigger warnings.

No. Tumblr is not a place of debate because its format makes debate difficult if not impossible to follow.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Also, point out a single unironic instance of "check your privilege" being used. I challenge you. I dare you. I double dog doctor dare you.

Well, to be fair, when someone says "check your privilege" there's nothing much to say against something like that. It's a "fuck you, I win" kind of argument that doesn't get anywhere once one starts comparing privileges ad reductio ad absurdum.

Not something I really care of, usually I just ignore the comment and roll my eyes at it.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Look. I'm sorry folks, but this is just getting beyond stupid here. The tempers are flaring - over nothing more than player OPINIONS on a matter that has already been decided as 'do what you want with it, we have no rules against it'.

So before it goes any further down the merry path to flaming hell, I'ma just close this down and reassure you all that no one is going to trod on your rights to phrase your OP as you would like, so long as there is no cursing or inappropriate content in it. Thanks.