A ban on Trigger Warnings [discussion]

[Katganistan]

I'm really failing to see how almost any of the above is appropriate for a discussion in moderation?

A link to...whatever someone is requesting these "trigger warnings" would be nice, please. I know for a fact that discussion of Tumblr's cultural and its supposed "circle jerk"ness doesn't belong here at all. SO lets drop that and see if we can get this on a "related to NS" wavelength?

Or I can move this to NSG?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=298322

The OP used trigger warning in the title, and some of us don't want the idea to catch on. This a preemptive effort.

So essentially, you're a solution in search of a non-problem.

There is no harm in someone adding a warning if they feel like it. You don't have to. What's the problem?

[The Batorys]

Because people can't ignore a single sentence that doesn't apply to them at the top of a post?

Do you comment on every single thing you see on your facebook news feed, too, even when it doesn't remotely apply to you?

No I don't but then that's because I don't have the time in the day to do that.

So maybe the problem is you, and not trigger warnings.

[The Serbian Empire]

No I don't but then that's because I don't have the time in the day to do that.

So maybe the problem is you, and not trigger warnings.

I'm more irritated with the actions of some of the posters who may be more vocal about the trigger warnings than myself. I oppose them in the title, but I wouldn't mind one inside of an OP's post as long as I don't see it in neon lights in the title.

[The Batorys]

So maybe the problem is you, and not trigger warnings.

I'm more irritated with the actions of some of the posters who may be more vocal about the trigger warnings than myself. I oppose them in the title, but I wouldn't mind one inside of an OP's post as long as I don't see it in neon lights in the title.

As I noted in my response to Reploid Productions, I somewhat agree that at the top of an OP is a better place for a trigger warning than the title. Accomplishes the same thing, but allows full use of the title space.

[Port blood]

I would say let them have their conventions,but don't make it a exception for trolling,let and let live - no rules required here

[Dyakovo]

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?

Absolutely no need for a ban.

[Farnhamia]

I'm more irritated with the actions of some of the posters who may be more vocal about the trigger warnings than myself. I oppose them in the title, but I wouldn't mind one inside of an OP's post as long as I don't see it in neon lights in the title.

As I noted in my response to Reploid Productions, I somewhat agree that at the top of an OP is a better place for a trigger warning than the title. Accomplishes the same thing, but allows full use of the title space.

If the person creating the thread feels like using part of the title space for a warning, who's to say otherwise? It's not as if they're stealing space from you to do it.

[The Corparation]

As I noted in my response to Reploid Productions, I somewhat agree that at the top of an OP is a better place for a trigger warning than the title. Accomplishes the same thing, but allows full use of the title space.

If the person creating the thread feels like using part of the title space for a warning, who's to say otherwise? It's not as if they're stealing space from you to do it.

But they are!!!1!! Each appearance of Trigger Warning is 15 characters I am forced to download without my consent. That's at least 15 Bytes of my Internets wasted per appearance if using the ASCII Character set. They're stealing my precious Internets by using the silly phrase. I for one will not stand for this not only becuase of those wasted bytes but also .because I'm lazy and don't want to leave my chair.

[The Batorys]

As I noted in my response to Reploid Productions, I somewhat agree that at the top of an OP is a better place for a trigger warning than the title. Accomplishes the same thing, but allows full use of the title space.

If the person creating the thread feels like using part of the title space for a warning, who's to say otherwise? It's not as if they're stealing space from you to do it.

Oh, I don't mind, I just think putting it at the top of the OP might be better. If I were to start a thread with them. I probably won't, though.

I'm really not sure why the presence of a trigger warning bothers anyone.

[Shaggai]

(although my answer wouldn't change because I am reflexively opposed to trigger warnings because I view them as an insult to my intellectual ability to predict what sort of things will be discussed in a thread).

If you can predict what will be discussed, they aren't aimed at you. Why worry?

[The Batorys]

(although my answer wouldn't change because I am reflexively opposed to trigger warnings because I view them as an insult to my intellectual ability to predict what sort of things will be discussed in a thread).

If you can predict what will be discussed, they aren't aimed at you. Why worry?

"HOW DARE THIS FOOD HAVE A WARNING LABEL THAT THERE'S DAIRY IN IT! I'M INSULTED BECAUSE I COULD HAVE FIGURED THAT OUT ON MY OWN! THE LACTOSE INTOLERANT AND VEGANS SHOULD JUST SUCK IT UP AND DEAL! WARNINGS THAT DON'T APPLY TO ME MAKE ME ANGRY!"

That's how I see people who object to trigger warnings.

[Vicious Debaters]

Huh?

A ban on Trigger Warnings? What?

I don't think trigger warnings should be mandatory because threads that contain disturbing material are generally pretty obvious and it would be too much work to enforce, but I also don't get why you'd ban them. If some OP wants to give a trigger warning, sure whatever. It's not against any rules and it shouldn't be against any rules- I mean, the rules for naming a thread are pretty loose and they should be.

[Llamalandia]

Its a preemptive strike to prevent tumblur infiltration.

This will be a valid concern when http://www.nationstates.net redirects to https://www.tumblr.com/

ahhhh it has begun the mods are already posting links to tumblr, everyone run for your life. Women and children first. No wait that's sexist and ageist and ableist and every other ist. ahh.

Just kidding.

No, while it does seem like there is a certain creeping in of "tumblr language" and other traits often associated with tumblr like "trigger warnings" I don't see any need to outright ban them yet. As long as it doesn't become an issue were people are complaining that we don't have the warnings. IF that begins happening then I think we should revisit the issue as at that point an outright ban would be necessary to ensure threads don't collapse into a black hole of "traumatized victims" "hurt" by a lack of warnings arguing endlessly with everyone else that they "deserved to be warned" in advance.


edit:

Huh?

A ban on Trigger Warnings? What?

I don't think trigger warnings should be mandatory because threads that contain disturbing material are generally pretty obvious and it would be too much work to enforce, but I also don't get why you'd ban them. If some OP wants to give a trigger warning, sure whatever. It's not against any rules and it shouldn't be against any rules- I mean, the rules for naming a thread are pretty loose and they should be.

Mostly a slippery slope concern, that and the idea, that some people may decide to just categorically avoid all threads with a warning, which effectively chills speech on the forum.

edit 2:

As I noted in my response to Reploid Productions, I somewhat agree that at the top of an OP is a better place for a trigger warning than the title. Accomplishes the same thing, but allows full use of the title space.

If the person creating the thread feels like using part of the title space for a warning, who's to say otherwise? It's not as if they're stealing space from you to do it.

Ok, but what if two people create the same thread, one with a warning and one without and the two threads are merged, does the warning stay does it go? Who gets to decide?

It be rather easy for all the prowarning people to simply duplicate the thread, add the warning and then demand that the two threads be merged would it not?

[Reploid Productions]

Ok, but what if two people create the same thread, one with a warning and one without and the two threads are merged, does the warning stay does it go? Who gets to decide?

It be rather easy for all the prowarning people to simply duplicate the thread, add the warning and then demand that the two threads be merged would it not?

Well... they could try it, but the thread merge tool arranges the posts in chronological order (it's not simply Thread A tacked onto the end of Thread B), and the forum software would take the title from whichever post has the earlier timestamp... in other words, the non-warninged version that was posted first.

Plus we don't always merge duplicate threads, if there's no real new content on the duplicate, we're more likely to simply lock it. Somebody trying to make tons of threads like that and racking up locked duplicates would stick out as a pattern and likely lead to spam warnings and admonishments to check the first page or so of NSG before posting.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I am once again struck by the notion of 'much ado about nothing' in regards to the entire thing. One thread, and suddenly - ZOMG BAN IT! BAN IT BEFORE IT SPREADS! and only one thread concerning trigger warnings that I've seen thus far in NSG at all. And now borrowing trouble with 'what if' situations.

Really, people. If there is a problem, report a problem. If there is not a problem, let's not create one just so we can complain about it, hm?

[Coffee Cakes]

I mildly support the ban, but if we're gonna ban trigger warnings, then we'd need to ban "check your privilege" posts, too.
Which I support in theory, but in practice... it just seems rather tacky, a bit.

[The Orson Empire]

I honestly don't see what the problem is with trigger warnings. A ban on them would be idiotic.

[Chrinthanium]

If someone wants to use a trigger warning, let them. This entire thread seems to stem from the OP and a "few others" who find their use to be in bad taste and want to ask Moderation to enforce their style of taste across the whole of NationStates. Please, really, it's already evident from the Moderation Team that this issue does not warrant this kind of attention and that the use of trigger warnings has been, so far, confined to a single thread and is not, by any means, against the rules.

What the heart of the issue seems to be is that the OP is against some form of Tumblr lingo creeping into NS. The OP seems to have an issue with Tumblr itself and, because of that, anything that vaguely reminds the OP of Tumblr-isms being used on NS, the OP is going rail against its use even though such behavior isn't prevalent on NS in the first place.

It's a question of personal taste, not site etiquette, really, as well as their attempt to censor another poster the OP and these "few others" feel aren't playing by the rules by which they think NS should operate. That's what the OP stated in the beginning:

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?

I say, this is a complete and utter non-issue.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

I don't see how anyone could possibly get so mortally offended at "trigger warnings" to want them banned, unless you're seriously going out and looking for things to try to be offended by.
Which, ironically, is a trait usually ascribed to the PRO-trigger-warnings crowd...

[The Serbian Empire]

If the person creating the thread feels like using part of the title space for a warning, who's to say otherwise? It's not as if they're stealing space from you to do it.

But they are!!!1!! Each appearance of Trigger Warning is 15 characters I am forced to download without my consent. That's at least 15 Bytes of my Internets wasted per appearance if using the ASCII Character set. They're stealing my precious Internets by using the silly phrase. I for one will not stand for this not only becuase of those wasted bytes but also .because I'm lazy and don't want to leave my chair.

I think each pixel is a byte so Trigger Warning is hundreds of little bytes being eaten up.

[Parka100]

Tumblr is essentially a circlejerk.

This very site is a circlejerk.

If people think Tumblr and NS are Circle Jerks. Then you have not never seen Reddit or 4chan

[Vicious Debaters]

Tumblr is essentially a circlejerk.

This very site is a circlejerk.

This site is different. Different in the sense that rather than being one unmitigated circlejerk, there are many different circlejerks that occasionally bump into each other.

Anyway, this 'Trigger warning' thing is certainly a nonissue.

[Forsher]

(although my answer wouldn't change because I am reflexively opposed to trigger warnings because I view them as an insult to my intellectual ability to predict what sort of things will be discussed in a thread).

If you can predict what will be discussed, they aren't aimed at you. Why worry?

Everyone should be able to predict what will be discussed, particularly given the nature of thread titles in NSG (the only known example is a particularly useless one). Sure, there will be surprises but, usually, the OP (i.e. the person with the ability to put a trigger warning in place) will be surprised as well.

Trigger Warnings should be used to distinguish between topics where themes aren't necessarily clear (see the feminism example that I used before) and it is less clear what specifics will pop up. A good example would be for a picture in a spoiler, much like how one might be labelled NSFW. Gratuitous use of [Trigger Warning] simply demeans its value: they should only be used when it is unclear what might be contained within.

This is secondary to the thread though because, as I and others have stated numerous times, it's one single thread. There have been no signs of any developing trends and even if there was a distinct trend it wouldn't necessarily be a problem (aside from not slotting in with NSG forum culture as it would suggest vague titling is more common: which would be an issue).

If you can predict what will be discussed, they aren't aimed at you. Why worry?

"HOW DARE THIS FOOD HAVE A WARNING LABEL THAT THERE'S DAIRY IN IT! I'M INSULTED BECAUSE I COULD HAVE FIGURED THAT OUT ON MY OWN! THE LACTOSE INTOLERANT AND VEGANS SHOULD JUST SUCK IT UP AND DEAL! WARNINGS THAT DON'T APPLY TO ME MAKE ME ANGRY!"

That's how I see people who object to trigger warnings.

And I explained how it's not actually a fair comparison.

I don't see how anyone could possibly get so mortally offended at "trigger warnings" to want them banned, unless you're seriously going out and looking for things to try to be offended by.
Which, ironically, is a trait usually ascribed to the PRO-trigger-warnings crowd...

The future of NSG thread titles: "Trigger Warning: Trigger Warnings in Post - This House Wo"

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

This very site is a circlejerk.

This site is different. Different in the sense that rather than being one unmitigated circlejerk, there are many different circlejerks that occasionally bump into each other.

Anyway, this 'Trigger warning' thing is certainly a nonissue.

That's... A really uncomfortable metaphor. Kind of gross come to think of it. But yeah, just because exactly one person did something is by no means an omen of doom.

[Grenartia]

I almost wonder if I should start up a thread for general discussion of the "NS Summer" phenomenon, if only to get it outta this thread.

Is this going to go ahead because I don't really have anything more to say with regards to trigger warnings but NS Summer...

That's what people getting angry about trigger warnings is like, to me. It's like getting mad about food being labelled as containing dairy if you have no reason not to consume dairy. Obviously if you have no reason not to consume dairy, then you can simply ignore the label, so why get mad about it?

They're essentially pointless when titles are as explanatory as they are here (by which I mean NSG). Of course a thread that is called "security guard beats student in wheelchair" is potentially going to be triggering. This is both more visible and less needed than "may contain dairy" warnings on food labels. In the current NSG environment a thread called something like "My problem with feminism" would likely start discussing rape, so that would be different (although my answer wouldn't change because I am reflexively opposed to trigger warnings because I view them as an insult to my intellectual ability to predict what sort of things will be discussed in a thread).

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.