I have been looking for something with exactly this point. I recently got into a discussion on Hubsky where I was disagreed with(in mostly healthy discussion) for recommending that people who have these triggers see therapists to learn to deal with these triggers instead of getting mad at others for discussing something that makes them uncomfortable. All to often the person who mentions something causing the trigger is the "bad guy" in these situations. Obviously we don't want to intentionally hurt people and is important to be truly apologetic and empathetic. However it's also important for those people with triggers to not hide behind them and to learn to overcome them. The world is a less than forgiving place and it is important to do what YOU can instead of only relying on other people to avoid any kind of controversy. If I had a badge I would give it to just for this post.
I imagine part of why you might have caught some flak for this is because the advice isn't anything unique--telling someone to "get over it" either through help of therapy or on their own doesn't solve the problem. Therapy doesn't just make people feel better, either--rape victims don't become okay with thinking about rape all of the time because they sit down and talk it out with someone who is willing to listen to them on a regular basis. And second, it just seems a little insensitive. Why do trigger warnings bother you? If you didn't read/view/experience something because somebody warned you that it was going to be intense in a specific way, the trigger warning has kept you from being put in a bad mood, or worse...and if you don't use it, it's literally 15 seconds of your time devoted to trying to help other people be comfortable. Your post is like getting mad at the Parent's Guide on IMDB, or like being pissed off when an amusement park warns you that you will get wet on a ride. And you know what? It isn't even about being offended--trigger warnings, although infrequently frivolous, are about maintaining and respecting the mental health needs of other people. And finally, it isn't like Columbia stopped teaching Ovid to students, they just gave them an alternative assignment like goo mentioned. The whole world isn't being turned into a bouncy house to protect these people, we're just putting warning signs on particularly uncomfortable sections of it.
An important thing to remember in conversations about triggering, which people on the internet, especially redditors, like to refer to as "muh feels", but it's not about feelings or mood largely. Survivors of rape, or assault, or war, or whatever causes PTSD, or various other trauma-induced mental issues, have a serious risk of dissociation wherein, among other problems, a continuity of consciousness is broken. Now if you're reading an article at, say, your office, and you have issues with PTSD from your rape, reading a detailed description of something similar may cause you to dissociate. And this is just one of many issues that could arise, that are simply solved by adding something like "warning: graphic content regarding war trauma". This is something that causes no harm to the writer, or the unaffected people, but means a great deal to a victim, so they have the right to choose to read it or not, or save it for a more appropriate time.
The social stigma stems from the few cases where trigger warnings are essentially used as censorship, shutting down debate. Generally not with things like rape, but by labeling dissenting opinions as "triggering." This is most common in online forums, but I have heard of it happening in college classrooms.
Sure, but I feel like the difference between the two is pretty clear, and I'm not sure if it's fair for the stigma to condemn the entire practice, rather than the specific misuses of it--which is what I personally tend to see, but this might not reflect the total reality.
I would like to say, while I'm generally not too sure how I feel about trigger warnings, that when I had my abortion in college and went around telling my professors what was going on, one English professor proactively looked at the syllabus, told me the next class was going to be about Death and that maybe I would want to miss it. I would have gone and I wouldn't have been triggered by the lecture, but I really needed time, space, peace, and to be with myself at the time. I was so, so greatful he did that for me. To me I guess that is the way a trigger should be dealt with. A student who maybe can't handle something should get a private, considerate "heads up" from the teacher, and the student can then choose to participate or not. If I had triggers I would not want the entire class to know about them, I think it would make it worse.
Of course, this is the goal. It's not necessary that everyone knows who or what is being referred to, but a simple layout of a syllabus would qualify as a trigger warning. It's merely having the availability of information that will be presented in a class, or an article, or a forum, or what have you. People seem to get extremely bent out of shape over... providing what may be encountered, and I honestly can't understand how people equate it with censorship. The topic is still present, the content still there, there's merely a warning going into it. It's not different than network television providing a content warning before graphic imagery. And if you want to get to lower levels even, wherein we're discussing people that have certain phobias or would just rather not see something on, say, their tumblr dash or hubski feed, and you're providing content you know someone will see and would rather not, providing something as simple as a tag saying "spiders" puts you out none and provides a benefit for someone. Of course this isn't such a large matter if you forget as it would be if we're talking about potential trauma. I see plenty of people complain about triggers existing and being shamed for not including them, but I've yet to actually see someone call out another for not including triggers unless it was a serious matter. Mostly everyone complaining about having to provide a content warning is completely oblivious to the effects of trauma.
Sincerely, your explanation makes a ton of sense. Thanks for taking the time!
A have addressed a few of your arguments in a reply to another person before I read this. My concern is that people are forced to tiptoe around others insecurities and often the person triggering the person is seen as the bad guy for not knowing that it was their trigger. It's not that we can't let people know that they will be subjected to these kinds of things. Also everyone seems to have something that sets them off and understanding that other people don't know what is going to set you of is just as important as using that information to decide what you will subject that person to. We often see only our side especially when it is something we feel emotionally about. Often emotions give us a false sense of being right or even righteous. I simply ask that we take that into account before villainizing someone especially an educator who is well within there courses subject matter.
I think if you accidentally say something to set someone off, you're not an evil person, but that's not what this article is about. There's a large distance between a social faux pas and forcing a PTSD victim to relive their experience(s). And yes, many people will have things that set them off, but most of the time you have to intentionally be an asshole to set off important things (for example, jokes about rape, domestic abuse, death in general, etc.). For the vast majority of things, it's pretty difficult to just stumble into--and for almost any situation, a heartfelt apology is literally all that you need to be right as rain in most people's books. I really, really want to emphasize and be very careful to state that I don't think the educator is at any fault here. I think that Ovid should be taught, if that's what the college chooses. The professor, the university, and the Greek Poet are not crooks because they've delivered this literature to the students, but it would be incredibly considerate if they would all keep in mind that the subject matter is very intense, and to give proper warnings to people who might have good reason to avoid it.
And that's where the divide really shows itself. In general, and obviously this is anecdotal, the people I speak to who are most critical of trigger warnings are the ones who express that no joke should be off-limits. So there's this worry that trigger warnings = censorship = jokes about rape not being allowed. Which is flawed thinking, in my opinion. Trigger warnings aren't meant to censor anything, they're in fact meant to allow people to create whatever they want while taking a quick second to warn potential consumers that there might be some graphic or obscene material within. The trigger warnings = censorship thinking seems, to me, like one that has a subtle slippery slope most people don't consider. What I mean by that is, it seems people thing trigger warnings need to be given out for literally anything that someone might not like. And I just don't see that happening. I don't think we're going to get to a point where someone requires every article to put trigger warnings in it for a political viewpoint just so they don't end up upsetting someone who doesn't agree with that viewpoint. Trigger warnings are meant for the types of things that can cause psychological demons to resurface and put someone in major distress. I can't say I've ever met someone who undergoes an anxiety attack because they read a conservative viewpoint on Fox News. But I've met someone who had no warning that The Hills Have Eyes was going to contain a graphic rape scene, and had a massive breakdown because her father had raped her years earlier. Sure, someone could say, "But people can suffer PTSD from lots of things so there might just be someone out there who gets triggered by Fox News and now you're requiring them to put warnings on their articles!" However, I'd have to see some evidence and proof and hear from actual professionals to believe that someone would be diagnosed has having Fox News be their trigger due to some event that occurred in their life, rather than something much more traumatic that has some real research explaining it.And yes, many people will have things that set them off, but most of the time you have to intentionally be an asshole to set off important things (for example, jokes about rape, domestic abuse, death in general, etc.).
He might have been referring to a conversation he had with me a couple of days ago, and this was exactly the problem (assuming it's my conversation he was indeed referring to). It started about whether intentions excuse someone from something hurtful they did and his argument was that people allow themselves to be hurt by words and ideas, and they need to learn better ways to cope. And my argument was that most people already do this but the discussion is about what to do once they've already been hurt, where saying "it wasn't my intention" doesn't help anyone.I imagine part of why you might have caught some flak for this is because the advice isn't anything unique--telling someone to "get over it" either through help of therapy or on their own doesn't solve the problem. Therapy doesn't just make people feel better, either--rape victims don't become okay with thinking about rape all of the time because they sit down and talk it out with someone who is willing to listen to them on a regular basis.
Yes, but the way to do so should be handled by a professional, like you said. What happens the most on the internet is that anyone who mentions that certain things trigger them is immediately spammed with endless copypasta and jokes about "LE TRIGGERED LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL I M LE ATTACK COPTER". And more than likely, that person will be sent the exact things that they mentioned trigger them, because the internet is a horrible place and gives praise to the most horrible actions. I don't think anyone with triggers is trying to "hide behind them" other than the very tiny amount of people on tumblr who misuse them and that nobody would ever even know about if not for places like /r/TumblrInAction going out of their way to find, highlight, and declare "THIS IS WHAT ALL SJWS ARE LIKE AND THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU". Yes, the world is a less than forgiving place, but that doesn't mean we should expect people who have experienced extreme trauma to just suck it up and deal with it. I spent time in a mental hospital and would've honestly beat the shit out of anyone who said that, because there were people there such as a woman in her forties who lost both of her daughters in the span of a year, with the last one dying due to a house fire she was in with her. If that woman has trouble being around fire, are you really going to tell her, "Suck it up. Fire happens, and I'm not going to stop making jokes about dead babies in fires just to accommodate your little trigger thing"?However it's also important for those people with triggers to not hide behind them and to learn to overcome them.
And the other important thing to note is that even if they are dealing with it with a professional, they will recommend that they try to avoid things which could 'trigger' them (so read reviews about a movie before watching in case it contains a graphic rape scene). This is because getting over issues like PTSD, fears, or anxieties, requires a gradual desensitisation to the material under controlled conditions and preferably with an expert there. Forcing people to view material that could trigger them without a warning is essentially a process called "flooding", where you simply force them to deal with their issues by dumping them in the deep end of their problems, and this unsurprisingly has the effect of setting back any progress made and often making the problems worse. So it always seems strange when people say that we shouldn't use trigger warnings because people just need to "deal with it". No shit, but part of dealing with it includes being able to prepare and compose yourself for possible upcoming triggers. Trigger warnings are just society's way of saying, "Hey, if it takes a tiny note or 2 seconds to mention something that might help you avoid having a debilitating and horrific attack, which would set back your mental health progress by a significant amount of time, then I'd prefer to do that".Yes, but the way to do so should be handled by a professional, like you said.
And that's mainly because the people who most often get angry about trigger warnings have never experienced the kind of psychological trauma that results in someone having a complete and total loss of their faculties when triggered. Shit, I didn't even realize how serious this shit could be until I spent time in a mental hospital as a patient.
To be fair the article isn't about the internet its about college and learning. I do agree th at the professor should have offered alternate course with for anyone who did not wish to participate free such reasons. A simple truth about humanity proven time and time again through science. People tend to hide from their problems instead of face them. It's a short term coping mechanism that our minds naturally use and is hard to break that. I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I'm not blaming the victim for using what our minds are trained to do. I'm simply saying it needs to be overcome and that takes effort not censorship of everyone around you. Naturally those around you should not want to trigger you but in life it IS going to happen. The only thing YOU can do as the triggered is learn how to handle yourself when you are triggered and deal with it accordingly. Not censor those around you. Making jokes in someone's face is a lot different than learning subject matter containing that kind of material. That point is a gross exaggeration not rooted in the reality of the same situation. Edit: auto correct failure
So...asking people to maybe not make jokes about dead babies around a woman who just suffered a miscarriage that caused PTSD is censorship. Sorry, but I'm no longer going to participate in this discussion. It's clear we fundamentally disagree on societal interaction, the definition of censorship, and whether or not a person suffering from crippling mental illness should be blamed for not signing up with the first therapist they can find and being back to normal in a week.I'm simply saying it needs to be overcome and that takes effort not censorship of everyone around you.
While I agree it's important to overcome triggers, these things do take time. Seeing a therapist does not magically make it all better. Some people (I like to think myself) have the gift of moving on; others, not so much, and need a little more time to work through it at their own pace. Encourage, but do not force. Perhaps the world could be described as a little more forgiving if we made the effort to accommodate the struggles others face!
It's hard to achieve that balance. I certainly agree with what you're saying, but I think that we're shifting into the realm of pandering to every little thing that makes people feel weird inside and it takes away from those that have actual issues. I think that it's important to be challenged - to feel that weird feeling of being uncomfortable at little things if people can hope to be able to overcome real traumatic situations. That said, the professor in the article should've given the option, like yours did, to say "no thanks" and do an alternate assignment. No reason to force someone to relive that experience. I'd be interested to read more on the subject; I don't personally understand how someone reads something and it affects them so much. I understand that it does but I don't know how/why. I'm not very empathetic and I've never had anything like that happen, so it's a foreign concept to me. Edit - I guess it doesn't really matter. kingmudsy explained it like a boss.
I'd like to know what leads you to believe this. If we were really shifting into "the realm of pandering to every little thing that makes people feel weird inside" then how would shows like Modern Family be possible considering how many people have very strong hate against homosexuality? How did same-sex marriage become legal in the entire country? How does Miley Cyrus have a career at all? I mean, don't get me wrong, I used to think this was definitely happening, back when I was a regular on /r/TumblrInAction. But people have been claiming for decades that "the PC police is ruining the world" yet we've had a golden age of television during that time with shows like Seinfeld, Breaking Bad, The Wire, and Game of Thrones.I think that we're shifting into the realm of pandering to every little thing that makes people feel weird inside and it takes away from those that have actual issues.
I mean, you know there was a time where you could get beaten with a ruler for having your knees show, right? Or where saying anything that could be remotely perceived as sympathetic to communism could make you unemployable and publicly shamed? I'd say that, as far as PC goes, we've come a long way towards letting people be open. Besides, if you really want to talk about PC gone wild, maybe you should be focusing on Texas' schoolbooks rewriting history by excluding Jim Crow laws, instead of a teacher giving students the ability to read something different for their class.
As far as I can tell, the majority of folks have a neutral or positive view of homosexuality. That would explain why there are more and more shows involving same-sex relationships or situations. These companies like Netflix have metrics on metrics about what their viewers would have a positive reaction toward. I don't know enough about the legislative process surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage to comment on that one, but I can only imagine that the many pro-gay-marriage groups pressuring politicians and a shift in public opinion contributed to that. Pure speculation though. I didn't know Miley Cyrus had a career. I think you're being facetious, but there are at least one or two even more ridiculous things going on in the world. I have no idea how the hell she would have a career though. The things that really get me are when kids in elementary school are expelled and shit for drawing a gun or making a poptart pistol. I think "POC" is just a veil to hide behind. Just say "X" people. To me, people of color sounds more racist than PC. I don't believe that we need to say stuff like "cerebrally challenged" or "doorperson" instead of doorman/doorwoman(if that's a thing). It's obnoxious. If the person I'm talking to can't figure out what I mean, then they can ask, but I loathe when someone tells me in that snarky, holier-than-thou tone to use the PC term. I honestly believe that if we stop giving special little groups for everything, that we'll become a more homogeneous society. Everyone wants to be a special butterfly, but we're forgetting that we're all just humans. I'm tall as hell (6'5"/198.12cm) but I don't need someone to call me vertically advantaged. I'm not very empathetic, but I don't want someone to call me emotionally challenged or whatever the hell you'd call it. I have varying aspects of my being just like any other person. I don't need or want to be placed in a special category besides "human being." Bam. Give me my rights. Treat me like everyone else. Give me a fair go. I think that's what everyone else really wants (maybe not the "no special category" thing, but the rights and whatnot.) Why it's not that way, I'm really not sure. I feel ramble-y and I'm losing focus. Let me know if you want me to expound on any of what I said, or if I've presented an incorrect fact.
This part really sticks out to me, because the "pop tart pistol" you're referencing is a clear case of people accepting what they're told second hand rather than looking into the issue themselves. That kid wasn't expelled for his pop tart, he was kicked out because he had frequently misbehaved, including trying to grope other students, and neither him nor his parents attempted to change his behavior. And that's where I honestly believe a lot of this "PC is ruining the world!" rhetoric comes from: places like /r/TumblrInAction and media outlets that function on the same plane are able to share false information or make it incredibly misleading, and it becomes "truth" because people would rather believe a title telling them the world is going to shit than spend a few minutes google and reading articles showing that no, the world is actually doing ok all things considered. I mean, she's on tours, she's got famous photoshoots, she's been in the media pretty frequently and a lot of people really like her music. Why am I the facetious one when you're denying that she has a career? Are you a person of color? Because, let's be honest, the majority of people who seem to find PoC to be a problematic term are not PoC, and just want to insert themselves into the conversation. The fact is, PoC has become a widely accepted term by people who happen to be of color. That's because calling someone black or african very easily associates someone with a race/country/nationality that they very well may not be part of.
1. This is the first time I've ever heard this term. 2. Are you implying that psychological diagnoses are not...ok? Like...if someone has developmental issues, what are you wanting their condition to be referred to as? I can honestly say that, other than blatant trolls TiA and reddit in general has fallen for, I have never seen someone actually throw a fit about the nomenclature used to refer to people who hold jobs related to doors. Again, this comes back to what I said before, that a lot of this "PC is ruining the world" rhetoric seems based entirely on secondhand information or actual bullshit. Like you're creating a world where you're the victim of other people who don't actually exist. Do you consider their tone snarky because they're asking you to use a different word than, say, "retard" or "faggot"? Are you sure you aren't just taking offense to someone asking that you acknowledge their humanity just as much as they acknowledge yours? It feels like you've created a caricature of socially-minded liberals that, I'll be honest, doesn't exist outside of the deepest, darkest, trolliest parts of tumblr and maybe the occasional college freshman who just learned about feminism and got over-excited. And you're forgetting that not all humans have the same experiences nor are all humans treated equally both under the law and in general. What you're essentially saying here is that transgender people should just shut the fuck up and act normal and they'll stop getting killed. That PoC should stop caring about the disproportionate force used against them by police time and time again because hashtag all lives matter. Can't imagine that'll ever happen. Mk, but you know that there are legitimate mental illnesses and disorders that can cause people to have problems with empathy or expressing and controlling their emotions, right? I've been diagnosed as bipolar, with ADHD, and PTSD. If you haven't been diagnosed has having mental issues, then I highly doubt anyone will refer to you as emotionally challenged, unless they're doing so as a joke or insult. It's not that way because, no matter how much you hope and wish and dream that every human is the same, we're a very troubled species that has a lot of issues with anything different from us. It's not that way because, no matter how much we would all love to be treated equally, we still have elected officials with immense power that use said power to keep women and minorities "in their place" and at a disadvantage. What you need to do is face up to reality. You need to accept that people are going to have their "special categories" because they want to SHOW YOU why the status quo, heterosexual white male perception of the world is flawed, because the people in those "special categories" are treated unfairly and have a lot of obstacles that most white, straight people will never experience. Now, have the dynamics improved compared to even fifty years ago? Sure! But we're far and away from an equal world, much less a single country in that world having equality, much less a single state in the USA having equality.The things that really get me are when kids in elementary school are expelled and shit for drawing a gun or making a poptart pistol.
I didn't know Miley Cyrus had a career. I think you're being facetious, but there are at least one or two even more ridiculous things going on in the world. I have no idea how the hell she would have a career though.
To me, people of color sounds more racist than PC.
I don't believe that we need to say stuff like "cerebrally challenged"
or "door person" instead of doorman/doorwoman(if that's a thing).
It's obnoxious. If the person I'm talking to can't figure out what I mean, then they can ask, but I loathe when someone tells me in that snarky, holier-than-thou tone to use the PC term.
I honestly believe that if we stop giving special little groups for everything, that we'll become a more homogeneous society. Everyone wants to be a special butterfly, but we're forgetting that we're all just humans.
I'm tall as hell (6'5"/198.12cm) but I don't need someone to call me vertically advantaged.
I'm not very empathetic, but I don't want someone to call me emotionally challenged or whatever the hell you'd call it.
I have varying aspects of my being just like any other person. I don't need or want to be placed in a special category besides "human being." Bam. Give me my rights. Treat me like everyone else. Give me a fair go. I think that's what everyone else really wants (maybe not the "no special category" thing, but the rights and whatnot.) Why it's not that way, I'm really not sure.
I am actually responding to lifestyle again as he has me blocked. Tv shows and comedy are completely different. Most of those shows shed light on the subjects, which may not be PC, in subtle ways that help people understand them without directly challenging peoples beliefs. They teach tolerance under the guise of comedy. Andy lake can very easily choose not to watch them and there is a rating system already in place to let people know what kind of show they are subjecting themselves to. Game if thrones is set in a scenario vastly different from our own reality so it doesn't really hit close to home for people or challenge their beliefs seeing as it's not real. It's fictional not factual. To be honest I'm not that familiar with the show as I don't watch series until they are complete so I can binge watch them. Therefore my argument for that one is purely assumed based on my understanding of what i have been told about it and im not qualified to discredit that particular show for your point. Breaking bad takes a look at the world's drug underground, something people seem to find fascinating as was evident with weeds. It also doesn't really challenge peoples beliefs. And again they can turn it off without a fuss if they don't like what they are seeing. And I don't know anything any the wire but my argument still stands about things being rated.
Edited multiple times to get everything correct. (With no response on the mean time)
Is it just me or did lifestyled just completely ignore the arguments I made and exit the conversation on grounds of jokes being made which had nothing to do with this particular article or post even though I basically said that jokes of that nature are different especially when done intentionally to a person you know had that trigger? Also, he blocked me lol.
My comment that starts with To be fair the article isn't about the internet its about college and learning. I do agree th at the professor should have offered alternate course with for anyone who did not wish to participate free such reasons. And his response to it which is immediately below it.