6 ms·

Warning: if you're sensitive seeing injured animals. Link has an image of taxidermy of one. (Though I suppose all taxidermy is injured animals one way or anothe

Warning: if you're sensitive seeing injured animals. Link has an image of taxidermy of one. (Though I suppose all taxidermy is injured animals one way or another...)

the_third_wave 3y ago
[flagged]
- jlnho 3y ago
  Depends. Some people are heavily traumatized, e.g. from childhood abuse. The title provides almost no indication as to what the content might be (OK, maybe a little, but only if you speak German), so I think it's fair to warn others for whom this kind of stuff can be a problem. I agree with your sentiment for "regular people", though.
- detrites 3y ago
  Hard disagree. Some people are hyper-sensitive due to extreme trauma, which can trigger into all kinds of things that can't be fathomed by the unaffected. It's also something particular to this site. The crossover of visually-sensitive with those who choose to hang out on one of the few text-only sites on the internet is probably high. The link is bare and with no clue as to the content other than it goes to "wikipedia", somewhat of click that could be considered to be safe. To me this justifies a warning.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      I'm an arachnophobe. If people reliably put "cw spiders" on links to spiders, my life would be a bit better. (Not a lot, because it's already not that hard to avoid pics of spiders online.) What we're talking about here isn't 'may contain nuts', it's 'definitely contains actual nuts'. This link doesn't have a "chance" of seeing a stuffed goose with an arrow in its neck, that is in fact what is there. Your example doesn't fit.
      - das_keyboard 3y ago
        > This link doesn't have a "chance" of seeing a stuffed goose with an arrow in its neck No it doesn't, because it's a stork.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        > No it doesn't, because it's a stork. God damn it. Well, at any rate I don't think the species of bird would be the triggering part there.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zichy 3y ago
  You seem to be very sensitive to the idea of people watching out for each other. Maybe you should start watching out for others so you can get rid of your sensitivity.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- pazimzadeh 3y ago
  You sound like someone who's never gone through anything traumatic, like watching someone die The kind of thing you're talking about should usually be done in the presence of a professional
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    I saw my father die in front of my eyes so yes, I have been through that type of experience. The over-reliance on "professionals" and the accompanying increase in diagnosis is one of the causes of the increase in emotional fragility.
    - detrites 3y ago
      Respectfully, if it didn't affect you such that a trigger can put you in a state you can barely function, and/or become a danger to yourself or others, then you haven't been through the type of experience being referred to here.
      - kevviiinn 3y ago
        I think you're over generalizing here, are you a mental health professional?
        detrites 3y ago
        You don't need to be a mental health professional to know what people you care about have been through.
        kevviiinn 3y ago
        But you probably do to make claims that someone's trauma wasn't traumatic enough for your standards
        detrites 3y ago
- blahedo 3y ago
  > In other words: trigger warnings are counterproductive in that they cultivate sensitivities instead of counteracting them. Or, they give people with a sensitivity a moment to fortify themselves, or delay reading/looking until they know they'll have a moment where they can afford to get a little derailed. Of all the people I know who value trigger warnings/content warnings/content notes and use them to adjust their own behaviour, exactly none of them use them to avoid their triggers 100% of the time. I'm sure such people are out there, but they're a small minority. Rather, they make mental distress a little more predictable and easier to navigate. Your advice to seek out exposure to the sensitivity is, as a sibling comment says, perhaps better done under supervision a little more professional than a HN comment, but more importantly, also suggests a certain mindfulness about managing the sensitivity. Getting exposed to the sensitivity might well decrease its pull, but getting surprised by the sensitivity is more likely to re-traumatise.
- foogazi 3y ago
  > This is how you get rid of hypersensitivity after all, by exposure to whatever it is you're overly sensitive to. There’s a bunch of scenarios I don’t want to desensitize from - thanks
- arp242 3y ago
  Not everyone is always in the mood for any kind of picture. The other day I was reading an article about some homeless people which mentioned some rather nasty sounding diseases they were suffering from; I wanted to look up some more details on that, but since there's a good chance the top of the Wikipedia page has an untasteful image I didn't. Am I able to view some pictures? Sure. Is such a picture useful? Absolutely. I just wasn't in the mood at that moment. Sometimes I wish Wikipedia had some better controls for this kind of stuff: no censorship, just opt-in blur out some of this stuff until you click on it, like reddit. In general I think giving people control over these kind of things is a good thing.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    In your browser: open site settings for Wikipedia, and disable images. Can also disable things like JavaScript, sounds, location services, etc.
    - arp242 3y ago
      I am aware you can do that. Obviously many images on Wikipedia are completely fine and useful I don't want to disable all images, and I'm not going to muck about with a bunch of browser settings every time I want to open Wikipedia, nor do I want to continuously try to guess what a page may or may not contain (which will undoubtable be wrong at least in some occasions). This is a non-solution.
threads2 3y ago
[flagged]

Warning: if you're sensitive seeing injured animals. Link has an image of taxidermy of one. (Though I suppose all taxidermy is injured animals one way or another...)

the_third_wave 3y ago

[flagged]

jlnho 3y ago
Depends. Some people are heavily traumatized, e.g. from childhood abuse. The title provides almost no indication as to what the content might be (OK, maybe a little, but only if you speak German), so I think it's fair to warn others for whom this kind of stuff can be a problem. I agree with your sentiment for "regular people", though.
detrites 3y ago
Hard disagree. Some people are hyper-sensitive due to extreme trauma, which can trigger into all kinds of things that can't be fathomed by the unaffected. It's also something particular to this site. The crossover of visually-sensitive with those who choose to hang out on one of the few text-only sites on the internet is probably high. The link is bare and with no clue as to the content other than it goes to "wikipedia", somewhat of click that could be considered to be safe. To me this justifies a warning.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    I'm an arachnophobe. If people reliably put "cw spiders" on links to spiders, my life would be a bit better. (Not a lot, because it's already not that hard to avoid pics of spiders online.) What we're talking about here isn't 'may contain nuts', it's 'definitely contains actual nuts'. This link doesn't have a "chance" of seeing a stuffed goose with an arrow in its neck, that is in fact what is there. Your example doesn't fit.
    - das_keyboard 3y ago
      > This link doesn't have a "chance" of seeing a stuffed goose with an arrow in its neck No it doesn't, because it's a stork.
      - FeepingCreature 3y ago
        > No it doesn't, because it's a stork. God damn it. Well, at any rate I don't think the species of bird would be the triggering part there.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zichy 3y ago
You seem to be very sensitive to the idea of people watching out for each other. Maybe you should start watching out for others so you can get rid of your sensitivity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pazimzadeh 3y ago
You sound like someone who's never gone through anything traumatic, like watching someone die The kind of thing you're talking about should usually be done in the presence of a professional
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  I saw my father die in front of my eyes so yes, I have been through that type of experience. The over-reliance on "professionals" and the accompanying increase in diagnosis is one of the causes of the increase in emotional fragility.
  - detrites 3y ago
    Respectfully, if it didn't affect you such that a trigger can put you in a state you can barely function, and/or become a danger to yourself or others, then you haven't been through the type of experience being referred to here.
    - kevviiinn 3y ago
      I think you're over generalizing here, are you a mental health professional?
      - detrites 3y ago
        You don't need to be a mental health professional to know what people you care about have been through.
        kevviiinn 3y ago
        But you probably do to make claims that someone's trauma wasn't traumatic enough for your standards
        detrites 3y ago
blahedo 3y ago
> In other words: trigger warnings are counterproductive in that they cultivate sensitivities instead of counteracting them. Or, they give people with a sensitivity a moment to fortify themselves, or delay reading/looking until they know they'll have a moment where they can afford to get a little derailed. Of all the people I know who value trigger warnings/content warnings/content notes and use them to adjust their own behaviour, exactly none of them use them to avoid their triggers 100% of the time. I'm sure such people are out there, but they're a small minority. Rather, they make mental distress a little more predictable and easier to navigate. Your advice to seek out exposure to the sensitivity is, as a sibling comment says, perhaps better done under supervision a little more professional than a HN comment, but more importantly, also suggests a certain mindfulness about managing the sensitivity. Getting exposed to the sensitivity might well decrease its pull, but getting surprised by the sensitivity is more likely to re-traumatise.
foogazi 3y ago
> This is how you get rid of hypersensitivity after all, by exposure to whatever it is you're overly sensitive to. There’s a bunch of scenarios I don’t want to desensitize from - thanks
arp242 3y ago
Not everyone is always in the mood for any kind of picture. The other day I was reading an article about some homeless people which mentioned some rather nasty sounding diseases they were suffering from; I wanted to look up some more details on that, but since there's a good chance the top of the Wikipedia page has an untasteful image I didn't. Am I able to view some pictures? Sure. Is such a picture useful? Absolutely. I just wasn't in the mood at that moment. Sometimes I wish Wikipedia had some better controls for this kind of stuff: no censorship, just opt-in blur out some of this stuff until you click on it, like reddit. In general I think giving people control over these kind of things is a good thing.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  In your browser: open site settings for Wikipedia, and disable images. Can also disable things like JavaScript, sounds, location services, etc.
  - arp242 3y ago
    I am aware you can do that. Obviously many images on Wikipedia are completely fine and useful I don't want to disable all images, and I'm not going to muck about with a bunch of browser settings every time I want to open Wikipedia, nor do I want to continuously try to guess what a page may or may not contain (which will undoubtable be wrong at least in some occasions). This is a non-solution.

threads2 3y ago

[flagged]