4 ms·

> 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 dis

by 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.
zyxley 10y ago
Nothing about trigger warnings requires immediately jumping down the slippery slope of putting "WARNING: CHEESE INSIDE" on the refrigerator door.
- Tyr42 10y ago
  Though we do put "Warning: may contain peanuts" on bags of roasted peanuts, so it's not like we haven't done some sliding before.
  - cristiandonosoc 10y ago
    People can die from peanuts though. It was not there on a whim (though I would argue is more to avoid lawsuits)
Nadya 10y ago
I don't think people generally include every possible phobia on the list. It quickly gets out of hand if you try to take into consideration everything beforehand, no matter how rare it is. What about people with acousticophobia, chromophobia, genuphobia, hyelophobia, or pogonophobia? No sound or music, no colors, no visible knees (dress code! no skirts), no windows or glass cups, and no beards! But if you know someone with xanthophobia, maybe don't wear a yellow shirt to their dinner party? I have an issue with safe spaces and trigger warnings. They aren't usually thought of being helpful by many, if not most, professionals. If anything, they are considered actively harmful for the "triggered" individual and increase depression. They're a feel-good measure so people can believe they are being considerate of others and announce it to the world. "Look how thoughtful and considerate of others I am being!" While letting them deride anyone who claims otherwise as being an asshole.
panglott 10y ago
I suspect that there are more sexual assault survivors than combat trauma survivors, so if your threshold is the incidence of combat-traumatized veterans, then you don't need to extend the limit further to include sexual assault survivors.
bmm6o 10y ago
Slippery slope arguments are too easy to make. Let's start with being considerate towards veterans with PTSD and see how that goes.
Steuard 10y ago
I didn't hear anyone say that a trigger warning means "shutting down topics and discussions". Isn't the whole point that it is a warning: that the topic is going to be discussed, and that you're giving a heads up so that folks can brace themselves if necessary (or make arrangements to engage with the material in another way). Maybe some definitions of "safe space" mean "shut down topics and discussions", but trigger warnings are specifically about having conversations, in a considerate way.
tedks 10y ago
>Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? That's probably a good idea either way...

by rapsey 10y ago

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.

zyxley 10y ago

Nothing about trigger warnings requires immediately jumping down the slippery slope of putting "WARNING: CHEESE INSIDE" on the refrigerator door.

Tyr42 10y ago
Though we do put "Warning: may contain peanuts" on bags of roasted peanuts, so it's not like we haven't done some sliding before.
- cristiandonosoc 10y ago
  People can die from peanuts though. It was not there on a whim (though I would argue is more to avoid lawsuits)

Nadya 10y ago

I don't think people generally include every possible phobia on the list. It quickly gets out of hand if you try to take into consideration everything beforehand, no matter how rare it is. What about people with acousticophobia, chromophobia, genuphobia, hyelophobia, or pogonophobia? No sound or music, no colors, no visible knees (dress code! no skirts), no windows or glass cups, and no beards! But if you know someone with xanthophobia, maybe don't wear a yellow shirt to their dinner party? I have an issue with safe spaces and trigger warnings. They aren't usually thought of being helpful by many, if not most, professionals. If anything, they are considered actively harmful for the "triggered" individual and increase depression. They're a feel-good measure so people can believe they are being considerate of others and announce it to the world. "Look how thoughtful and considerate of others I am being!" While letting them deride anyone who claims otherwise as being an asshole.

panglott 10y ago

I suspect that there are more sexual assault survivors than combat trauma survivors, so if your threshold is the incidence of combat-traumatized veterans, then you don't need to extend the limit further to include sexual assault survivors.

bmm6o 10y ago

Slippery slope arguments are too easy to make. Let's start with being considerate towards veterans with PTSD and see how that goes.

Steuard 10y ago

I didn't hear anyone say that a trigger warning means "shutting down topics and discussions". Isn't the whole point that it is a warning: that the topic is going to be discussed, and that you're giving a heads up so that folks can brace themselves if necessary (or make arrangements to engage with the material in another way). Maybe some definitions of "safe space" mean "shut down topics and discussions", but trigger warnings are specifically about having conversations, in a considerate way.

tedks 10y ago

>Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? That's probably a good idea either way...