9 ms·

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually c

by jpfed 10y ago

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy. There was a popular meme spread around the Fourth of July to be considerate of veterans who may be distressed by the sound of fireworks. If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up.

trevin 10y ago
I'd argue that it's equally as impossible to set up trigger warning policies. While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, there is no finite end to a list of triggers. [0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html
- jpfed 10y ago
  You don't need a trigger warning policy, necessarily. Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers. This notice goes in the opposite direction. >It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, there is no finite end to a list of triggers. It's not necessary to exhaust the full list. Analogously: it's impossible to list out and educate people on every form of negative externality, but we still have laws to address the big ones, and that helps.
  - wang_li 10y ago
    What is really needed is the common sense and personal decision to get help with issues which are distressing so that reminders of those issues doesn't cause anxiety, stress, or a break-down.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    >Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers. I'd argue we pretty much already have this. Most people are aware of when a delicate topic is delicate and will treat it as such or avoid it, depending on the context. Trigger warnings seem to be a hammer in search of a nail, or more likely to me, something that was perhaps well intentioned at one point that is now just a means of attention seeking.
- acbabis 10y ago
  Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable; nor do they expect more specific content warnings in the future. This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere
  - mcphage 10y ago
    > This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere I agree it is, but right now it's very difficult to have the discussions necessary to draw those lines—supporters of trigger warnings only want to discuss the cases where they're clearly justified (fireworks & veterans) and pretend all uses are similarly valid, and critics of trigger warnings only want to discuss the cases where they're clearly not (slimy things), and pretend that all uses are similarly invalid. Determining where the lines should be drawn will be a long, complicated, painful discussion, but currently there's no way to have that conversation. If your opinion is somewhere in the middle, most internet commentators will lump you into the all-for or all-against group.
    - acbabis 10y ago
      That's a good point. Internet commenters tend to overgeneralize. Fortunately, those people aren't strictly needed for a solution. The only party who needs to listen is the content provider (in my example, the news outlet).
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      I agree it is, but right now it's very difficult to have the discussions necessary to draw those lines When something is 1) subjective or very hard to measure and 2) used as an emotional bludgeon then then people are going to call "shenanigans" and even start to exhibit knee-jerk doubt about such things. Often, this is a tragedy, as the issues may well be both real and difficult to discuss. The quality of such debate and discussion has been hurt by the "Eternal September" nature of online discussion. The internet gives everyone a voice, especially if you have time to waste. Hence, clueless Freshmen and middle-schoolers have disproportionately loud voices online.
- rsync 10y ago
  "[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" from the list: - Pregnancy/childbirth - Death or dying - Slimy things It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.
  - mdadm 10y ago
    > It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile. Which is, in turn, why many people don't take these things seriously. Of course, perhaps there is a justification for "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" in colleges, but the issue of whether those 1) belong in the classroom as opposed to elsewhere on campus, and 2) should be a feature of colleges at all, is completely derailed by things like this.
    - pyre 10y ago
      At the same time, in a country that values free speech people are allowed to have idiotic opinions. The fact that people are giving those opinions credence because they are "on the Internet" is probably closer to the issue.
  - tedks 10y ago
    Really? You don't think people are capable of being traumatized by pregnancy, death, or insects? Personal injury and insects are among the most common phobias and pregnancy should be fairly obvious as to why it's on that list (I don't want to elaborate because that could be traumatizing). Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile.
    - rsync 10y ago
      "Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile." None of the items I listed involve oppression or special subgroups of people. They are basic components of the human condition. An inability to deal with the basic aspects of being alive is, ipso facto, infantile.
- bhickey 10y ago
  > While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. This is going to sound like a bad joke. Fear of needles are more legitimate than might appear at first blush. Those of us with a needle phobia will experience a sudden drop in blood pressure, precipitating unconsciousness. In some cases this leads to death, making it one of the few phobias that can outright kill you. I had the good fortune to undergo desensitization via allergy shots.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. Because they are involve quite similar problems (safe for whom and from what? Warnings for which specific of the billions of potential PTSD triggers?) and are typically advocated for together, by the same people, as linked demands, to serve similar broad purposes. > But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy. No, they aren't. They are neither simple, nor are they, in fact, a common courtesy (whether or not you think they should be a common courtesy.) > There was a popular meme spread around the Fourth of July to be considerate of veterans who may be distressed by the sound of fireworks. There were actual several different ones, most of which were variations on combat veterans with signs at their homes asking for consideration and restraint. > If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. (1) Expecting people to, proactively and without knowledge of the particular trauma experienced by or triggers relevant to the audience, provide "trigger warnings" is exactly the reverse of the kind of specific and personal request for consideration at issue in the meme, and (2) Triggering with PTSD is, in fact, quite complicated, but most often (AFAIK) involves sensory stimuli that are associated with the instance(s) of trauma producing the condition, such as sights, sounds, smells, etc. that were present during the trauma. Discussion of the class of event that relates to the trauma may be areas of strong emotional context and political sensitivity to many people (whether or not they are victims of that particular kind of trauma), but nothing I've read of actual PTSD and triggering suggests that they are particular likely to be triggers in the strict sense, even to victims of the trauma under discussion -- even to victims that do have PTSD and do have genuine, identifiable triggers. (3) Proactive trigger warnings not based on the real known specific triggers applicable to a specific audience, if one isn't to give priority to certain type of traumas and certain presumed triggers associated with that trauma as "more deserving", quickly turn everything into a mass of warnings, most of which are irrelevant even to people who have PTSD originating in the type of trauma the warning is focused on.
- jpfed 10y ago
  I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. The point of extending the courtesy of trigger warnings isn't that you will, with 100% certainty, prevent anyone from entering a state of psychological distress. That's obviously not attainable. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There's really obvious stuff that instructors could warn about, but aren't. After I posted a similar sentiment on Facebook, a TA told me about their professor showing porn (featuring torture) in class. Who could have known that the majority-female class she was showing this to would contain some rape victims that left the classroom in tears?! Totally out of the blue, that. Now, I don't expect anyone to know that aging wood with thin brown flaking paint is evocative of the assault I experienced; that would be ridiculous. But of course descriptions of assaults themselves are going to be evocative. In short, there's really easy low-hanging fruit here, and I hope people aren't so turned off by the unattainable goals of safe spaces and 100% trigger coverage that they don't extend the courtesy of warning for really obvious, foreseeable triggers.
mikeash 10y ago
I can't decide whether or not I'm playing devil's advocate with this question. In any case, please don't take it too seriously, but I think it might be interesting. Why did you not include a trigger warning about the discussion of rape in your comment?
- zyxley 10y ago
  "Mention of rape" and "discussion of rape in enough detail to cause discomfort" are not the same thing.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'm sure we can find someone who is uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Not that we should necessarily accommodate such extremes, but how do you decide where to draw the line?
    - qntty 10y ago
      You guess and invite people to correct you if you're wrong? How is anything that requires judgement decided? Eventually there will be an accepted norm but at the beginning there never is.
      - deong 10y ago
        That's a nice solution if everything is more or less working properly. The problem is, "What do you do when they tell you you're wrong about everything?" One of the links in the article was to an article by a law professor talking about the difficulty of teaching rape and sexual assault law. The point being made there was that the entire subject has become off-limits -- literally, a large number of her colleagues had simply elected not to teach it anymore. If your complaint is that, today, students are demanding an abuse of the notion of trigger warnings and safe spaces to effectively prevent exposure to potentially upsetting discussions, and that we are harming the long-term development of students by doing so, then by definition, you believe the corrections you'd get would essentially take the form "bring back all the trigger warnings we had when you started this process".
leroy_masochist 10y ago
With regard to veterans and fireworks, I think that would actually be an example of a "safe space", in that the vets in question are demanding that neighbors not celebrate America's independence within a given radius of their homes. They're not asking for a heads-up before people shoot off roman candles...they're saying, don't do it near my house, period. FWIW, I don't think this is a consideration worth extending to veterans, and I am dismayed by the fact that many vets have embraced the culture of competitive victimhood that has infected much of American popular discourse. With that said I do think that a professor giving a heads-up to students that they're going to discuss uncomfortable topics (e.g., rape) in class is probably the right thing to do, within reason (e.g., if it's going to be the central theme of that day's discussion).
- parineum 10y ago
  > With that said I do think that a professor giving a heads-up to students that they're going to discuss uncomfortable topics (e.g., rape) in class is probably the right thing to do, within reason (e.g., if it's going to be the central theme of that day's discussion). I'd disagree with that. If it's central to the lecture, it should be essential/relevant to the course. If it's not, there's no reason to bring it up in the first place. The concept of a trigger wasn't created as something to be avoided. Identifying a trigger is the first step in identifying and dealing with the underlying psychological issue. It's similar with safe spaces. They are things that people need post-trauma to help recovery. It's not meant to be a permanent need or something that should be broadened to the world at large. Your therapist creates a safe space for you to discuss your triggers.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  > I don't think this is a consideration worth extending to veterans, and I am dismayed by the fact that many vets have embraced the culture of competitive victimhood that has infected much of American popular discourse. That seems a bit callous. Care to elaborate? I don't think they are usually framing these as "demands", and I don't see how asking for this consideration necessarily crosses into "competitive victimhood". Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, physical stimuli are the type of "actual" triggers than can cause real panic attacks in those with PTSD, unlike verbal discussions of uncomfortable topics which can cause emotional distress but not true panic attacks.
brightball 10y ago
It's just not an equivalent analogy. Explosions sound and light are somewhat recreating a war time experience. The classroom equivalent for trigger warnings would be telling veterans that a discussion of a war in history class was coming.
- jpfed 10y ago
  I think you're looking for a depth of equivalence that I wasn't suggesting was there. To further muddy things, you should know that explosions themselves don't produce the responses they do just in veterans. High-bandwidth sounds trigger an autonomic response as soon as they hit the brain stem- long before the cortex has a chance to think "I recognize that as an explosion", the brain stem said "HOLY SHIT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING". This mechanism is observed in rape and abuse survivors as well as veterans.
  - brightball 10y ago
    So in what classroom circumstances would a warning be necessary? I'm all for being courteous, I just have serious concerns about giving college students the impression that the world around them needs to adjust to them rather than vice versa.
    - jrock08 10y ago
      Examples of some obvious things that really shouldn't be too controversial: Showing pictures of a massacre Showing pictures or video from a war Reading a graphic account of a soldier from war Showing pictures of mass graves (esp where body parts are identifiable) Showing pictures or video of a rape (even if a scene from a movie) Showing pictures of the evidence from a rape Reading a graphic account of a rape victim
    - jpfed 10y ago
      I don't think TWs should be required. But explicit descriptions or depictions of assault are pretty low-hanging fruit here. By not making a policy, but encouraging a culture of learning about common triggers, we also encourage a more adaptive approach. If someone is distressed and they let you know, you can decide whether it makes sense to warn about that content in the future.
rapsey 10y ago
> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning? If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discussions you don't want to have? If someone has a personal issue, what gives them the right to force their issues on others? Why must everyone adapt to them?
- sp332 10y ago
  I think you're missing the part where they are victims, and all we're trying to do is minimize the damage. That's a calculated risk that each person is going to have to take for themselves.
  - jtuente 10y ago
    They were victims; they're not actively victims in the moment of a discussion. The damage has already been done. Conversely, you can say that you're helping with the recovery and healing process. But it's important to acknowledge the aspects of the past, present and future as they relate to trauma.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - sp332 10y ago
      Causing someone a panic attack in the present is not damage that "has already been done".
      - jtuente 10y ago
        They're not experiencing a new incidence of trauma, they're reliving one. A more "physical" corollary would be the "ghost" limb sensation for someone who has lost one. That person doesn't lose their limb every time the sensation comes and goes away -- it was lost before and after the incident. It may be painful sure, but who says that recovery and healing is without pain? One of the leading methods of treating PTSD being studied is having combat veterans relive a similar incident through a controlled environment.
serge2k 10y ago
> But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy Indeed. I see "Trigger warning" and I know I don't want to read what an author has to say.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
> But trigger warnings are really a simple common courtesy. Yes and no. Sure, it is courteous to warn folks of overly graphic material. But at the same time, if folks cannot handle discussing such things in a university setting, they should seek help. Which should be readily available and affordable. It also shouldn't be frowned upon if someone needs to leave the room in such a discussion - and teachers should be open to private requests for trigger warnings when appropriate... With the understanding that the person will or is seeking help as a condition. > If you think this consideration worth extending to a veteran... But I don't. It isn't that I don't feel empathy for the veterans, but I think they should be offered (by the government) a safe place to go so they aren't triggered. This is a yearly event. And I think we (citizens and government) have a responsibility to provide help. The veteran has the responsibility to actually follow through with the help.
noddingham 10y ago
Why do you think it would be hard on a college campus? You simply declare an office in a building to be a "safe space", or a space designated for certain groups and then promote, encourage the use of, and fill it with people that align with <idea>. Additionally, the safe space is placed in a building that is not funded by taxpayers, thus can be managed in basically whatever way the university sees fit (including denying access to the space).

by jpfed 10y ago

trevin 10y ago

I'd argue that it's equally as impossible to set up trigger warning policies. While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, there is no finite end to a list of triggers. [0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html

jpfed 10y ago
You don't need a trigger warning policy, necessarily. Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers. This notice goes in the opposite direction. >It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, there is no finite end to a list of triggers. It's not necessary to exhaust the full list. Analogously: it's impossible to list out and educate people on every form of negative externality, but we still have laws to address the big ones, and that helps.
- wang_li 10y ago
  What is really needed is the common sense and personal decision to get help with issues which are distressing so that reminders of those issues doesn't cause anxiety, stress, or a break-down.
- r_smart 10y ago
  >Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers. I'd argue we pretty much already have this. Most people are aware of when a delicate topic is delicate and will treat it as such or avoid it, depending on the context. Trigger warnings seem to be a hammer in search of a nail, or more likely to me, something that was perhaps well intentioned at one point that is now just a means of attention seeking.
acbabis 10y ago
Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable; nor do they expect more specific content warnings in the future. This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere
- mcphage 10y ago
  > This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere I agree it is, but right now it's very difficult to have the discussions necessary to draw those lines—supporters of trigger warnings only want to discuss the cases where they're clearly justified (fireworks & veterans) and pretend all uses are similarly valid, and critics of trigger warnings only want to discuss the cases where they're clearly not (slimy things), and pretend that all uses are similarly invalid. Determining where the lines should be drawn will be a long, complicated, painful discussion, but currently there's no way to have that conversation. If your opinion is somewhere in the middle, most internet commentators will lump you into the all-for or all-against group.
  - acbabis 10y ago
    That's a good point. Internet commenters tend to overgeneralize. Fortunately, those people aren't strictly needed for a solution. The only party who needs to listen is the content provider (in my example, the news outlet).
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    I agree it is, but right now it's very difficult to have the discussions necessary to draw those lines When something is 1) subjective or very hard to measure and 2) used as an emotional bludgeon then then people are going to call "shenanigans" and even start to exhibit knee-jerk doubt about such things. Often, this is a tragedy, as the issues may well be both real and difficult to discuss. The quality of such debate and discussion has been hurt by the "Eternal September" nature of online discussion. The internet gives everyone a voice, especially if you have time to waste. Hence, clueless Freshmen and middle-schoolers have disproportionately loud voices online.
rsync 10y ago
"[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" from the list: - Pregnancy/childbirth - Death or dying - Slimy things It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.
- mdadm 10y ago
  > It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile. Which is, in turn, why many people don't take these things seriously. Of course, perhaps there is a justification for "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" in colleges, but the issue of whether those 1) belong in the classroom as opposed to elsewhere on campus, and 2) should be a feature of colleges at all, is completely derailed by things like this.
  - pyre 10y ago
    At the same time, in a country that values free speech people are allowed to have idiotic opinions. The fact that people are giving those opinions credence because they are "on the Internet" is probably closer to the issue.
- tedks 10y ago
  Really? You don't think people are capable of being traumatized by pregnancy, death, or insects? Personal injury and insects are among the most common phobias and pregnancy should be fairly obvious as to why it's on that list (I don't want to elaborate because that could be traumatizing). Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile.
  - rsync 10y ago
    "Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile." None of the items I listed involve oppression or special subgroups of people. They are basic components of the human condition. An inability to deal with the basic aspects of being alive is, ipso facto, infantile.
bhickey 10y ago
> While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. This is going to sound like a bad joke. Fear of needles are more legitimate than might appear at first blush. Those of us with a needle phobia will experience a sudden drop in blood pressure, precipitating unconsciousness. In some cases this leads to death, making it one of the few phobias that can outright kill you. I had the good fortune to undergo desensitization via allergy shots.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. Because they are involve quite similar problems (safe for whom and from what? Warnings for which specific of the billions of potential PTSD triggers?) and are typically advocated for together, by the same people, as linked demands, to serve similar broad purposes. > But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy. No, they aren't. They are neither simple, nor are they, in fact, a common courtesy (whether or not you think they should be a common courtesy.) > There was a popular meme spread around the Fourth of July to be considerate of veterans who may be distressed by the sound of fireworks. There were actual several different ones, most of which were variations on combat veterans with signs at their homes asking for consideration and restraint. > If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. (1) Expecting people to, proactively and without knowledge of the particular trauma experienced by or triggers relevant to the audience, provide "trigger warnings" is exactly the reverse of the kind of specific and personal request for consideration at issue in the meme, and (2) Triggering with PTSD is, in fact, quite complicated, but most often (AFAIK) involves sensory stimuli that are associated with the instance(s) of trauma producing the condition, such as sights, sounds, smells, etc. that were present during the trauma. Discussion of the class of event that relates to the trauma may be areas of strong emotional context and political sensitivity to many people (whether or not they are victims of that particular kind of trauma), but nothing I've read of actual PTSD and triggering suggests that they are particular likely to be triggers in the strict sense, even to victims of the trauma under discussion -- even to victims that do have PTSD and do have genuine, identifiable triggers. (3) Proactive trigger warnings not based on the real known specific triggers applicable to a specific audience, if one isn't to give priority to certain type of traumas and certain presumed triggers associated with that trauma as "more deserving", quickly turn everything into a mass of warnings, most of which are irrelevant even to people who have PTSD originating in the type of trauma the warning is focused on.

jpfed 10y ago
I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. The point of extending the courtesy of trigger warnings isn't that you will, with 100% certainty, prevent anyone from entering a state of psychological distress. That's obviously not attainable. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There's really obvious stuff that instructors could warn about, but aren't. After I posted a similar sentiment on Facebook, a TA told me about their professor showing porn (featuring torture) in class. Who could have known that the majority-female class she was showing this to would contain some rape victims that left the classroom in tears?! Totally out of the blue, that. Now, I don't expect anyone to know that aging wood with thin brown flaking paint is evocative of the assault I experienced; that would be ridiculous. But of course descriptions of assaults themselves are going to be evocative. In short, there's really easy low-hanging fruit here, and I hope people aren't so turned off by the unattainable goals of safe spaces and 100% trigger coverage that they don't extend the courtesy of warning for really obvious, foreseeable triggers.

mikeash 10y ago

I can't decide whether or not I'm playing devil's advocate with this question. In any case, please don't take it too seriously, but I think it might be interesting. Why did you not include a trigger warning about the discussion of rape in your comment?

zyxley 10y ago
"Mention of rape" and "discussion of rape in enough detail to cause discomfort" are not the same thing.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I'm sure we can find someone who is uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Not that we should necessarily accommodate such extremes, but how do you decide where to draw the line?
  - qntty 10y ago
    You guess and invite people to correct you if you're wrong? How is anything that requires judgement decided? Eventually there will be an accepted norm but at the beginning there never is.
    - deong 10y ago
      That's a nice solution if everything is more or less working properly. The problem is, "What do you do when they tell you you're wrong about everything?" One of the links in the article was to an article by a law professor talking about the difficulty of teaching rape and sexual assault law. The point being made there was that the entire subject has become off-limits -- literally, a large number of her colleagues had simply elected not to teach it anymore. If your complaint is that, today, students are demanding an abuse of the notion of trigger warnings and safe spaces to effectively prevent exposure to potentially upsetting discussions, and that we are harming the long-term development of students by doing so, then by definition, you believe the corrections you'd get would essentially take the form "bring back all the trigger warnings we had when you started this process".

leroy_masochist 10y ago

With regard to veterans and fireworks, I think that would actually be an example of a "safe space", in that the vets in question are demanding that neighbors not celebrate America's independence within a given radius of their homes. They're not asking for a heads-up before people shoot off roman candles...they're saying, don't do it near my house, period. FWIW, I don't think this is a consideration worth extending to veterans, and I am dismayed by the fact that many vets have embraced the culture of competitive victimhood that has infected much of American popular discourse. With that said I do think that a professor giving a heads-up to students that they're going to discuss uncomfortable topics (e.g., rape) in class is probably the right thing to do, within reason (e.g., if it's going to be the central theme of that day's discussion).

parineum 10y ago
> With that said I do think that a professor giving a heads-up to students that they're going to discuss uncomfortable topics (e.g., rape) in class is probably the right thing to do, within reason (e.g., if it's going to be the central theme of that day's discussion). I'd disagree with that. If it's central to the lecture, it should be essential/relevant to the course. If it's not, there's no reason to bring it up in the first place. The concept of a trigger wasn't created as something to be avoided. Identifying a trigger is the first step in identifying and dealing with the underlying psychological issue. It's similar with safe spaces. They are things that people need post-trauma to help recovery. It's not meant to be a permanent need or something that should be broadened to the world at large. Your therapist creates a safe space for you to discuss your triggers.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> I don't think this is a consideration worth extending to veterans, and I am dismayed by the fact that many vets have embraced the culture of competitive victimhood that has infected much of American popular discourse. That seems a bit callous. Care to elaborate? I don't think they are usually framing these as "demands", and I don't see how asking for this consideration necessarily crosses into "competitive victimhood". Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, physical stimuli are the type of "actual" triggers than can cause real panic attacks in those with PTSD, unlike verbal discussions of uncomfortable topics which can cause emotional distress but not true panic attacks.

brightball 10y ago

It's just not an equivalent analogy. Explosions sound and light are somewhat recreating a war time experience. The classroom equivalent for trigger warnings would be telling veterans that a discussion of a war in history class was coming.

jpfed 10y ago
I think you're looking for a depth of equivalence that I wasn't suggesting was there. To further muddy things, you should know that explosions themselves don't produce the responses they do just in veterans. High-bandwidth sounds trigger an autonomic response as soon as they hit the brain stem- long before the cortex has a chance to think "I recognize that as an explosion", the brain stem said "HOLY SHIT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING". This mechanism is observed in rape and abuse survivors as well as veterans.
- brightball 10y ago
  So in what classroom circumstances would a warning be necessary? I'm all for being courteous, I just have serious concerns about giving college students the impression that the world around them needs to adjust to them rather than vice versa.
  - jrock08 10y ago
    Examples of some obvious things that really shouldn't be too controversial: Showing pictures of a massacre Showing pictures or video from a war Reading a graphic account of a soldier from war Showing pictures of mass graves (esp where body parts are identifiable) Showing pictures or video of a rape (even if a scene from a movie) Showing pictures of the evidence from a rape Reading a graphic account of a rape victim
  - jpfed 10y ago
    I don't think TWs should be required. But explicit descriptions or depictions of assault are pretty low-hanging fruit here. By not making a policy, but encouraging a culture of learning about common triggers, we also encourage a more adaptive approach. If someone is distressed and they let you know, you can decide whether it makes sense to warn about that content in the future.

rapsey 10y ago

> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning? If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discussions you don't want to have? If someone has a personal issue, what gives them the right to force their issues on others? Why must everyone adapt to them?

sp332 10y ago
I think you're missing the part where they are victims, and all we're trying to do is minimize the damage. That's a calculated risk that each person is going to have to take for themselves.
- jtuente 10y ago
  They were victims; they're not actively victims in the moment of a discussion. The damage has already been done. Conversely, you can say that you're helping with the recovery and healing process. But it's important to acknowledge the aspects of the past, present and future as they relate to trauma.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sp332 10y ago
    Causing someone a panic attack in the present is not damage that "has already been done".
    - jtuente 10y ago
      They're not experiencing a new incidence of trauma, they're reliving one. A more "physical" corollary would be the "ghost" limb sensation for someone who has lost one. That person doesn't lose their limb every time the sensation comes and goes away -- it was lost before and after the incident. It may be painful sure, but who says that recovery and healing is without pain? One of the leading methods of treating PTSD being studied is having combat veterans relive a similar incident through a controlled environment.

serge2k 10y ago

> But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy Indeed. I see "Trigger warning" and I know I don't want to read what an author has to say.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

> But trigger warnings are really a simple common courtesy. Yes and no. Sure, it is courteous to warn folks of overly graphic material. But at the same time, if folks cannot handle discussing such things in a university setting, they should seek help. Which should be readily available and affordable. It also shouldn't be frowned upon if someone needs to leave the room in such a discussion - and teachers should be open to private requests for trigger warnings when appropriate... With the understanding that the person will or is seeking help as a condition. > If you think this consideration worth extending to a veteran... But I don't. It isn't that I don't feel empathy for the veterans, but I think they should be offered (by the government) a safe place to go so they aren't triggered. This is a yearly event. And I think we (citizens and government) have a responsibility to provide help. The veteran has the responsibility to actually follow through with the help.

noddingham 10y ago

Why do you think it would be hard on a college campus? You simply declare an office in a building to be a "safe space", or a space designated for certain groups and then promote, encourage the use of, and fill it with people that align with <idea>. Additionally, the safe space is placed in a building that is not funded by taxpayers, thus can be managed in basically whatever way the university sees fit (including denying access to the space).