3 ms·

Getting similar emotions to having been punched from reading a name sounds very scary. And, if such people exist, how can I tell, what other things can trigger

Getting similar emotions to having been punched from reading a name sounds very scary. And, if such people exist, how can I tell, what other things can trigger others? People having been involved in bad car crashes might plausibly be triggered by mention of traffic. So the question becomes, why do we afford the safety to certain groups but not others? The simple fact is that any and all text, spoken or written, can do harm by triggering emotions or introducing ideas contrary to one’s beliefs causing discomfort. So how do we choose what to warn people about?

happytoexplain 5y ago
We can't create a well defined or objective method of choosing, but we also don't need to. Like most things, it's a judgement call. It's reasonable to add a label for basically anything if you know people are affected by it. It's reasonable to omit a label for something you don't think will affect people. It's reasonable to criticize the absence of obvious labels in obvious contexts, and not reasonable to criticize the absence of non-obvious labels in non-obvious contexts (but it's reasonable to request them politely!). We can't define any of that, but it would be a fallacy to use that as an excuse to attack the concept of content warnings.