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.