Because I can't say "FUCK THIS GUY IN HIS FUCKING EYEHOLE" in the D&D Open Letter thread. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ape-victim-equally-responsible_n_2424739.html
Someone should hold him down and punch him with his own hand, shouting "STOP HITTING YOURSELF! STOP HITTING YOURSELF!" What? He'd be equally responsible.
I am reminded of Samuel Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley - I would show him how one hand can clap on someone else's face.
Yeah, when did this start and why? It's only recently I've noticed, but now it's everywhere. I realize rape is a horrible thing, but where's the trigger warnings in threads about a man gunning down children? As a parent, that certainly triggered a reaction. Not trying to be insensitive here and perhaps there's a special reason, that I just need to have explained - but why do we warn about this one horrible thing, when we discuss so many other horrible things without?
What the hell is this. It's gotta be someone trolling, right? "Anti-magic?" Am I just being dense for thinking it could be someone's once earnest internet post?
There being stupid people on the internet does not necessarily mean something is wrong. Arguing against trigger warnings by quoting stupid people on the internet is like arguing that atheism is wrong by quoting hateful /r/atheism shitheads. Also, this sentence: means that this is an all-purpose thread for content that is horrible, and the content and/or the thread itself may contain trigger warnings/may be triggering content in and of itself. That last bit is somewhat ambiguous (e.g., whether the thread itself contains trigger warnings, the content contains trigger warnings, or that one should infer the thread has triggering content and consider the thread title sufficient warning) but not to the point of being functionally uninformative (implicitly, if you are easily triggered, do not enter the thread; this is sufficient). Need pedantry? Call AaronSofaer today!
I thought this whole subforum was for horrible? Must we throw the awful awfuls into a further ghetto?
SHOULDA HEEDED THE WARNING BRO SHOULDA COULDA DIDN'T HUH. This is the forum for horribly unsound or invalid argumentation, people being dicks to people, and people talking over brett's head. Both forums are equally amenable to talking about horrible things; in here, we just do it in a dishonest, inconsistent, or gif-filled way.
Trigger warnings in specific came about because of PTSD and similar conditions, where a traumatic memory is re-lived as a result of a trigger. As exposure to a trigger effectively literally causes you instant suffering, warnings are considered a kindness. A trigger warning for a man gunning down children would be appropriate if you were posting about it in a place where you were aware it was likely that readers with traumatic memories of similar events might read it. The more widespread use of trigger warnings for rape in general is an acknowledgement of how widespread rape is, and therefore how widespread traumatic memories of it are. If shootings were as common an experience as rape is, then you'd theoretically see trigger warnings about it as often. What trigger warnings should really be about is sensitivity to the likely composition of your audience when you speak.
"This is an all-purpose thread for content that is horrible; if you are easily triggered, do not enter the thread" can't possibly too many words, not words that are too big. There are only six words of more than one syllable.
Except that "trigger warning" is not meant that all-encompassing but refers to one particular brand of horrible, so what you say is wrong and did not in fact answer my question. (but then perhaps you were just answerring Otterloop's, which you in fact did albeit incorectly) Menserachs post however did. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning, but I understand it.
I was answering Otterloop's question, and I answered it correctly. If he wanted a definition of the term "trigger words", well, that's not the question he asked. :) Anyway, since everyone's questions are clearly answered, good night to you all!
Trigger warnings have acquired a bad reputation around the internet in general. This is understandable. The original aim of trigger warnings, as I explicated in my post above, was a simple and relatively laudable goal of attempting to help people avoid reliving traumatic memories. Unfortunately, like many terms related to social justice and mental health issues, it has also been re-purposed by the unscrupulous as a stick to beat people with and a means by which special snowflakes can draw attention to themselves. This is the internet, that happens. The trick is not to throw the useful baby out with the lol-internet bathwater. To that end, a guide to the responsible use of trigger warnings: 1. It is not reasonable to expect all potentially problematic discourse to have trigger warnings on it. There are simply too many possible triggers for that to be practical. 2. Awareness of audience is key. If you know your audience includes people with traumatic memories of the subject you're going to write about, a trigger warning is a kindness and I would argue, the moral thing. If you suspect they might be, a trigger warning is probably best practice and at worst does no harm. If it's unlikely or impossible, there is no need to bother and there should be no sense of moral obligation. 3. When considering the above, it is important to be aware of what you audience actually is, as opposed to what you think it is or might wish it to be. If in doubt, there is little harm in asking. If one of your goals is to create an inclusive and pluralist space, than caution in this assessment is a good policy. 4. Trigger warnings should be about assisting with the inclusiveness of discourse and helping to conduct conversation. They should not be a means to shut down conversation. 5. Above all, simply listen to people. If someone tells you they'd have appreciated a trigger warning on something, then the sensible and humane response is to apologise and comply, and learn from the experience re: what your audience actually is.
Trigger warnings started with good intentions: let people who might have PTSD know about the content of something especially horrible before they get into it so they can make the informed choice to not read it if they don't have the capacity to deal with the emotional toll that day. But we live in the land of the Specialest Snowflakes, where if you see a way to bitchily demand that people modify their behavior for you and they do it then that gives you warm fuzzy feelings of the recognition of your enormous specialness, so of course it has been subverted. I know someone who has been asked, and has complied with the request, to put TW: FOOD on every picture of food they post. I don't look down on people voluntarily putting trigger warnings on content that they think may trouble people, it's an act of kindness. I sure as hell side-eye the fuck out of some people's requests for trigger warnings, though.
I don't even really see what's a trigger in the linked article. Is it the mere mention of rape? Other than a man ripping out her intestines with his bare hands (which seems like more of a violence trigger than a rape one), it doesn't go into much description of the incident. I'm not saying it's not a trigger - I honestly don't really understand how it works. Or is the trigger RyanMM talking about fucking a dude in his eyehole?
I'm reasonably certain that RyanMM's use of "may contain trigger warnings" in the topic title was meant to be a joke, Hanacker.
