5 ms·
I think the disparity here is that the "trigger warning" is warning that there's a possibility someone's feelings might be hurt which is ridiculous. If we start
by obituary_latte 12y ago
I think the disparity here is that the "trigger warning" is warning that there's a possibility someone's feelings might be hurt which is ridiculous. If we start down that path, where do we draw the line?
Please edit your post to include a trigger warning: comparing epilepsy and religious belief may insult some people. See? Absurd.
- philh 12y agoI care about people's feelings. I agree that there's probably a qualitative difference between offending someone and causing them to have a seizure. But I'd still prefer not to offend them, all else being equal, and this would be true even if there was no such thing as epilepsy. There's no hard line. We use our best judgement, based on what we know of our audience. However, I will note one counterargument that I find compelling, which is utility monsters. If we reward people for getting upset, that gives them an incentive to get more upset. I don't know the best way to deal with this, but I suspect that "no trigger warnings" is not optimal.