I seriously don't get why you think not showing peopel the thing that causes them tremendous stress and terror might make things worse
I think it's at least not a laughable idea that exposure to triggers in a safe realm (reading a book instead of participating in a live action war sim, say, or going to a firing range) might help somebody to cope, at least in the absence of any theraputic evidence one way or the other. That's how some phobias are treated, for instance.
Trigger warnings can be for all sorts of things. But they're essentially just informing people of content they might find objectionable. Which we've been doing for decades.
+1
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I seriously don't get why you think not showing peopel the thing that causes them tremendous stress and terror might make things worse
I think it's at least not a laughable idea that exposure to triggers in a safe realm (reading a book instead of participating in a live action war sim, say, or going to a firing range) might help somebody to cope, at least in the absence of any theraputic evidence one way or the other. That's how some phobias are treated, for instance.
Yeah
But we arent Doctors
So we put triggers on our shit so we dont expose people to stuff before they are ready
Unless lighting off fire crackers at the veterans hospital is considered "therapy" now
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
4. Even if all of the above are true, it's not immediately obvious that there won't be deleterious effects from trigger warnings being applied in an intelligence fashion that don't shift the cost / benefit analysis, like chilling effects, or curiculum shifts, or someone having the Good Idea Fairy tell them that maybe trigger warnings should indicate inappropriateness for minors, and then Romeo and Juliet becomes 18+ [tw: violence, suicide, after all].
.
that that what this is describing is an endgame where trigger warnings might morph into content ratings for age appropriateness, which is what movies have now.
So basically what this is coming down to is people arguing to argue/saying that we should just expose victims to shit because they just need to get over it
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Trigger warnings can be for all sorts of things. But they're essentially just informing people of content they might find objectionable. Which we've been doing for decades.
That's why I kinda want to move away from the use of the phrase Trigger Warnings, at least for this discussion. Something like Contect Discriptions maybe?
These things already exist though, in several rough formats. Genre classifications is one, but is pretty much useless. Reviews is pretty much my go to one, but it involves waiting a week after release, and then shifting through swathes of unwanted information to get what I want.
I heavily curate my viewing, mostly because of time.
So basically what this is coming down to is people arguing to argue/saying that we should just expose victims to shit because they just need to get over it
I think there's a nagging suspicion, lurking behind a lot of the arguments here, that lots of people who say they're 'triggered' by things don't really have PTSD, but simply prefer not to be exposed to things they don't like. When you have advocates for 'trigger' warning about "racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression" I kinda understand the skepticism that it's really about protecting victims who have suffered horrible experiences.
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
It actually sounds like trigger warnings are for anxiety spectrum and not PTSD
PTSD is not universally triggered by jump scares and adrenaline and general trauma; anxiety and stress disorders are.
I don't think anyone asserted these things?
Last page was talking about panic attacks and phobias and warnings of general violence. Thinking back to the woman who left the movie theater, it's not fair to label her as a trauma survivor, as the material could have just been too much for her
PTSD triggers can be exceedingly benign to the average human being, but triggers of stress reactions usually have something unpleasant about them that is magnified in some. Like, a PTSD trigger warning could be "contains dogs," while something that would reliably provoke anxiety could contain "graphic murder scenes," which many people with PTSD may have no problems with if they don't have an underlying anxiety disorder.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
And what would be your solution then? No ratings or content descriptions at all?
Because something like that will always appear. It's useful information.
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
A professor doesn't have to do any of those things. They might because they want to let their students know what's going on. Just like people, I would in fact wager including professors, have been doing for decades/centuries.
Your second link is not a study and you specifically said no anecdotes. Regardless, it does nothing to prove your point. Content ratings have been around forever. Free speech has continued to march on and indeed improve.
Finally, your third claim is simply false. The government can indeed make laws along those lines. It's illegal by federal law to sell obscene material to minors. So not only could a law be made, one has.
But that's neither here nor there. Because labeling the content of items is not a bad thing and you continue to fail to show how it is in any way.
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
And what would be your solution then? No ratings or content descriptions at all?
Because something like that will always appear. It's useful information.
Since the widespread adoption of the internet, it's simultaneously possible to have no ratings or content descriptions on content directly, and the most detailed content descriptions available ever, as I referenced a few pages ago. IMDB tells you more than the MPAA ever did.
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
A professor doesn't have to do any of those things. They might because they want to let their students know what's going on. Just like people, I would in fact wager including professors, have been doing for decades/centuries.
Your second link is not a study and you specifically said no anecdotes. Regardless, it does nothing to prove your point. Content ratings have been around forever. Free speech has continued to march on and indeed improve.
There's a difference between one undergrad giving their opinion on an area outside their area of expertise and the oldest and largest library association in the world giving their formal position on matter related to library content, which is largely unchanged in over half a century, and is obviously correct, being as labeling has consistently led to de facto or de jure censorship within the US.
Finally, your third claim is simply false. The government can indeed make laws along those lines. It's illegal by federal law to sell obscene material to minors. So not only could a law be made, one has.
The M-rating was made by the ESRB, which I think exists voluntarily and isn't affiliated with the government. Ratings and trigger warnings and such are a courtesy to parents so the federal government would not ban the sale of M-rated games to minors; they'd make up their own ratings system first.
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
And what would be your solution then? No ratings or content descriptions at all?
Because something like that will always appear. It's useful information.
Since the widespread adoption of the internet, it's simultaneously possible to have no ratings or content descriptions on content directly, and the most detailed content descriptions available ever, as I referenced a few pages ago. IMDB tells you more than the MPAA ever did.
A professor doesn't have to do any of those things. They might because they want to let their students know what's going on. Just like people, I would in fact wager including professors, have been doing for decades/centuries.
Just as no one in this thread apparently thinks that professors should be required to use trigger warnings, similarly no one thinks they should be prohibited from doing so. As I understand it, any attempt to prohibit a professor from using trigger warnings if they deemed them pedagogically appropriate would be a violation of academic freedom and you can bet the AAUP and etc. would by all means be against it.
Nonetheless, their position gives some reasons to think that, even if professors should be allowed to adopt trigger warnings, it may not be a good idea. I more or less endorse them: trigger warnings can suggest to students both that complex literary works are really about a handful of simple topics and then also what their response to those topics 'should' be. This undermines much of the value of student engagement with those works, where they are expected to develop their own interpretive skills rather than relying on a prepackaged understanding. Given that there are other avenues for treating actual PTSD cases, I think these are good reasons to think that trigger warnings are a bad idea.
'Why not do both?' seems to be the response. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. There are two ways to test for the clap: they can do a pee test, and they can take a urethral swab. Both work, but the downside of the urethral swab is that it hurts like hell. So, naturally, it's preferable to do the pee test instead. Similarly, if we have multiple ways for accomodating actual PTSD cases among the university population, then it's natural to avoid the ones with bad side effects. Student health services and the legal disability framework are adequate to the goal and lack the downside of interfering with the educational mission. So they're to be preferred.
For reference, since the AAUP position statement mentions it: the American Library Association's position on content warnings is somewhat complicated. They support what they call 'viewpoint-neutral directional aids.' I assume these would include, e.g., filing a book under 'early American war literature.' After all, part of the librarian's job is to help you find the books that you want to read. However, they reject 'prejudicial labels.' And by these I assume they mean labels like 'subversive material.' The difference, as they see it, is that the former are a convenience that helps users, whereas the latter constitute an illicit attempt to impose value judgments on content in an effort to encourage certain reader responses while discouraging others. This they take to be contrary to the mission of the library system.
Trigger warnings may look like neutral directional aids--just describing the content for the interested reader--however, they are unlikely to square with the library association's approach: the library association emphasizes that what might look like mere descriptive labeling can in practice become prejudicial. It seems clear to me that essentially all of the 'out there' trigger warnings would satisfy this condition. 'Heterosexism,' 'ableism,' etc. are all labels that include a substantial, controversial, and negative value judgment. Even if they look like descriptions, in function they have the bad features of prejudicial labels. Given that they feel similarly about labels like 'contains mild violence' (mild according to who, they ask?) I imagine that it would be hard to square their approach with even the less 'out there' warnings.
Nonetheless, although they refuse to add content warnings to the bibliographic record, and will not themselves endorse them, they will still refrain from removing content warnings that come already packaged with the works they acquire. This is probably the extent to which their practice is compatible with trigger warnings. And, of course, I'm sure that any librarian would work individually with someone who has PTSD triggers to help find reading material that would be suitable. As before, it is the value-judgments encoded in labeling systems they oppose, not the directional aid. And it's not like they're monsters or something.
MrMister on
+3
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
It actually sounds like trigger warnings are for anxiety spectrum and not PTSD
PTSD is not universally triggered by jump scares and adrenaline and general trauma; anxiety and stress disorders are.
I don't think anyone asserted these things?
Last page was talking about panic attacks and phobias and warnings of general violence. Thinking back to the woman who left the movie theater, it's not fair to label her as a trauma survivor, as the material could have just been too much for her
PTSD triggers can be exceedingly benign to the average human being, but triggers of stress reactions usually have something unpleasant about them that is magnified in some. Like, a PTSD trigger warning could be "contains dogs," while something that would reliably provoke anxiety could contain "graphic murder scenes," which many people with PTSD may have no problems with if they don't have an underlying anxiety disorder.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. I'm not sure you do, either.
What point is there in separating warnings out between PTSD and anxiety?
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is. It also seems rather insulting to the intelligence of the audience in question to not be able to see past any interpretations of a work's question beyond what is a potential anxiety or trauma trigger.
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is. It also seems rather insulting to the intelligence of the audience in question to not be able to see past any interpretations of a work's question beyond what is a potential anxiety or trauma trigger.
I agree.
MrMister's analogy is not good at all. These warnings are not about the treatment of a problem. They are about avoiding the expression of symptoms, or just showing some consideration for the traumatised.
Comparing telling someone that Edward Bond's Lear is going to be pretty violent and shocking, or that there is rape in Titus Andronicus, to sticking something in your urethra is such a poor analogy I am astonished it was made in the first place.
And how actually common are 'malingerers' who lie and claim to be traumatised so that they don't have to see Da Vinci's Leda and the Swan?
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
A professor doesn't have to do any of those things. They might because they want to let their students know what's going on. Just like people, I would in fact wager including professors, have been doing for decades/centuries.
Your second link is not a study and you specifically said no anecdotes. Regardless, it does nothing to prove your point. Content ratings have been around forever. Free speech has continued to march on and indeed improve.
There's a difference between one undergrad giving their opinion on an area outside their area of expertise and the oldest and largest library association in the world giving their formal position on matter related to library content, which is largely unchanged in over half a century, and is obviously correct, being as labeling has consistently led to de facto or de jure censorship within the US.
Finally, your third claim is simply false. The government can indeed make laws along those lines. It's illegal by federal law to sell obscene material to minors. So not only could a law be made, one has.
But that's neither here nor there. Because labeling the content of items is not a bad thing and you continue to fail to show how it is in any way.
No, you just choose not to recognize it as harmful.
Dude, you don't need to break every dingle sentence down in to a new quote. It's terrible.
Anecdote is still anecdote. You said no anecdotes. Please don't be a hypocrite. Your link does not prove your point. It is illegal to sell obscene material to minors as per 18 U.S.C. § 1470. Your link addresses an attempt by California to broaden that power. And while it was struck down it doesn't change the fact that the power itself does exist. And finally if you would actually show actual harm it would be far more convincing. But I have decades/centuries of history of content warnings existing. You have yet to show what terrible harm they've caused. HBO continues to exist despite showing TV-MA before Game of Thrones.
A professor doesn't have to do any of those things. They might because they want to let their students know what's going on. Just like people, I would in fact wager including professors, have been doing for decades/centuries.
Just as no one in this thread apparently thinks that professors should be required to use trigger warnings, similarly no one thinks they should be prohibited from doing so.
Oh for fuck's sake.
I never said anyone claimed they should be prohibited. Can we stop making the assumption that others are claiming people should be forced to do anything? It's dishonest and happens damn near every page.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
@Quid What do you actually want, here? Is the current ratings system sufficient? Does it need to be expanded (from TV/movies/games to books and college syllabi and so on)? Is HBO's version preferred and everybody else should rise to that standard?
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
The Sixth Sense had a big sign up at the start saying 'This movie has a twist. Please don't spoil it for anyone.'
It ruined the twist, which took me about 3 minutes to work out.
And you know what? I couldn't give the ghost of a shit. It spoiled a movie for me. Obviously nobody actually needs trigger warnings about the Sixth Sense, but it is just a movie. It's a million times less important than even one person spending a night at home sobbing.
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
This whole thing seems like a really uninspired "problem" that is easy to solve. Make it mandatory that, if a class is going to include a book with rape in it, that you have to say "Hey, some of the material we'll be covering will deal with potentially triggering topics like rape and suicide. If any of you guys have problems with that you can come talk to me or shoot me an email and I'll give you more details". Or, get a trigger warning directory in the school bookstore/library. Or have a website they can go to. Or tap it in morse code. There are so many ways to counter this minor drawback that my bullshitometer is going off.
I also find it interesting that in this thread there were so many requests for scientific proof that avoiding things that trigger people will cause people to avoid being triggered, but everyone is taking the dubious claim that 'knowing a piece of literature contains rape will make it harder to think critically about the piece' at face value.
Make it mandatory that, if a class is going to include a book with rape in it, that you have to say "Hey, some of the material we'll be covering will deal with potentially triggering topics like rape and suicide. If any of you guys have problems with that you can come talk to me or shoot me an email and I'll give you more details".
That makes great sense to me. Regardless of PTSD and anxiety disorders, I'd want students to know what they're letting themselves in for, and choose their courses accordingly. I can think of ineffectual or even potentially counterproductive ways of doing trigger warnings, but something along those lines is what I'd be happy to do as a teacher. Not just because the topics are potentially triggering: I think it's fair that some students may not be comfortable with certain topics, and I think that within reason that's absolutely fair. (If someone has problems with sex and violence in art, I'd want them to seriously think whether studying literature or art history is what they want to be doing in the first place.)
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
This whole thing seems like a really uninspired "problem" that is easy to solve. Make it mandatory that, if a class is going to include a book with rape in it, that you have to say "Hey, some of the material we'll be covering will deal with potentially triggering topics like rape and suicide. If any of you guys have problems with that you can come talk to me or shoot me an email and I'll give you more details". Or, get a trigger warning directory in the school bookstore/library. Or have a website they can go to. Or tap it in morse code. There are so many ways to counter this minor drawback that my bullshitometer is going off.
I also find it interesting that in this thread there were so many requests for scientific proof that avoiding things that trigger people will cause people to avoid being triggered, but everyone is taking the dubious claim that 'knowing a piece of literature contains rape will make it harder to think critically about the piece' at face value.
And even if that claim is true, I personally value real people's sanity more than some abstract concept.
You want evidence that warning people prevents them from being surprised?
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
We think the statement of the American Library Association regarding “labeling and rating systems” applies to trigger warnings. “Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or theme of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive for all or certain groups of users….When labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor’s tool.”
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
A professor doesn't have to do any of those things. They might because they want to let their students know what's going on. Just like people, I would in fact wager including professors, have been doing for decades/centuries.
Your second link is not a study and you specifically said no anecdotes. Regardless, it does nothing to prove your point. Content ratings have been around forever. Free speech has continued to march on and indeed improve.
There's a difference between one undergrad giving their opinion on an area outside their area of expertise and the oldest and largest library association in the world giving their formal position on matter related to library content, which is largely unchanged in over half a century, and is obviously correct, being as labeling has consistently led to de facto or de jure censorship within the US.
Finally, your third claim is simply false. The government can indeed make laws along those lines. It's illegal by federal law to sell obscene material to minors. So not only could a law be made, one has.
But that's neither here nor there. Because labeling the content of items is not a bad thing and you continue to fail to show how it is in any way.
No, you just choose not to recognize it as harmful.
Dude, you don't need to break every dingle sentence down in to a new quote. It's terrible.
Anecdote is still anecdote. You said no anecdotes. Please don't be a hypocrite. Your link does not prove your point. It is illegal to sell obscene material to minors as per 18 U.S.C. § 1470. Your link addresses an attempt by California to broaden that power. And while it was struck down it doesn't change the fact that the power itself does exist. And finally if you would actually show actual harm it would be far more convincing. But I have decades/centuries of history of content warnings existing. You have yet to show what terrible harm they've caused. HBO continues to exist despite showing TV-MA before Game of Thrones.
Oh, god, stop being a goose. Obscenity is a specific standard above and beyond violent, Mature rating, or pornography. My exact quote was: " It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law," which is factually true, because no M rated video game is going to get hit by the obscenity classification. 2 Girls, 1 Cup is obscenity, Halo isn't even especially violent as far as the action genre goes.
Secondly, there is a difference between 75 years of experts delivering the formal position of a professional organization and one person saying their actions are someone else's fault. That should be so mind blowingly obvious as to make it absurd for me even to have to type it out.
And lastly, you quote centuries of these existing, and yet pretend the Comics Code Authority never existed, or any number of other censor regimes. Also, the term "chilling effect" was coined by the Supreme Court in it overturning attempted censorship and oppression of people for being Communist or wanting to read Communist materials, so your claim that centuries of content warnings* haven't produced the whisper of censorship is particularly rich. You might want to argue something closer to, "In the last few years, no formal government censorship regime tied to content warnings has survived very long without a sucessful a constitutional challenge," which is more accurate, and conveniently ignores all the private sector censorship that a handful in this thread want to pretend doesn't count.
* After all, in Lamont v. Postmaster General, it wasn't illegal to have Communist material per se, the government just assisted people in helpfully detaining anything with a 'content warning' unless they specifically requested it.
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
This whole thing seems like a really uninspired "problem" that is easy to solve. Make it mandatory that, if a class is going to include a book with rape in it, that you have to say "Hey, some of the material we'll be covering will deal with potentially triggering topics like rape and suicide. If any of you guys have problems with that you can come talk to me or shoot me an email and I'll give you more details". Or, get a trigger warning directory in the school bookstore/library. Or have a website they can go to. Or tap it in morse code. There are so many ways to counter this minor drawback that my bullshitometer is going off.
I also find it interesting that in this thread there were so many requests for scientific proof that avoiding things that trigger people will cause people to avoid being triggered, but everyone is taking the dubious claim that 'knowing a piece of literature contains rape will make it harder to think critically about the piece' at face value.
And even if that claim is true, I personally value real people's sanity more than some abstract concept.
The reason many people attend university is for "abstract concepts." Universities are not strictly trade schools. There's no danger of reading about sexual assaults in a pipefitting and welding class, but when people take classes that more broadly explore the human experience, it should be assumed it might discuss something that isn't sunshine and rainbows.
That, and as has been said multiple times, there is no proof trigger warnings have a significant positive mental health effect, and the recommendation from the professor's union was that mental health be addressed through the office that handles mental health related accommodations, so constructing that dichotomy is flawed in the first place.
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
This whole thing seems like a really uninspired "problem" that is easy to solve. Make it mandatory that, if a class is going to include a book with rape in it, that you have to say "Hey, some of the material we'll be covering will deal with potentially triggering topics like rape and suicide. If any of you guys have problems with that you can come talk to me or shoot me an email and I'll give you more details". Or, get a trigger warning directory in the school bookstore/library. Or have a website they can go to. Or tap it in morse code. There are so many ways to counter this minor drawback that my bullshitometer is going off.
I also find it interesting that in this thread there were so many requests for scientific proof that avoiding things that trigger people will cause people to avoid being triggered, but everyone is taking the dubious claim that 'knowing a piece of literature contains rape will make it harder to think critically about the piece' at face value.
And even if that claim is true, I personally value real people's sanity more than some abstract concept.
The reason many people attend university is for "abstract concepts." Universities are not strictly trade schools. There's no danger of reading about sexual assaults in a pipefitting and welding class, but when people take classes that more broadly explore the human experience, it should be assumed it might discuss something that isn't sunshine and rainbows.
That, and as has been said multiple times, there is no proof trigger warnings have a significant positive mental health effect, and the recommendation from the professor's union was that mental health be addressed through the office that handles mental health related accommodations, so constructing that dichotomy is flawed in the first place.
There. A well cited, well referenced study concluding that repeated exposure to environmental triggers is both psychologically and physiologically harmful. Trigger warnings would allow students to avoid exposure to environmental triggers. No one is claiming that trigger warnings will magically cure PTSD, in the same way that wheelchair ramps don't cure broken legs. It would be great if their broken legs healed, but in the mean time they have shit to do.
I keep hearing this claim that trigger warnings in a syllabus somehow bias students against the content of what they are reading to the point of ignoring other interpretations or themes derived from the content of the works in question.
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
This whole thing seems like a really uninspired "problem" that is easy to solve. Make it mandatory that, if a class is going to include a book with rape in it, that you have to say "Hey, some of the material we'll be covering will deal with potentially triggering topics like rape and suicide. If any of you guys have problems with that you can come talk to me or shoot me an email and I'll give you more details". Or, get a trigger warning directory in the school bookstore/library. Or have a website they can go to. Or tap it in morse code. There are so many ways to counter this minor drawback that my bullshitometer is going off.
I also find it interesting that in this thread there were so many requests for scientific proof that avoiding things that trigger people will cause people to avoid being triggered, but everyone is taking the dubious claim that 'knowing a piece of literature contains rape will make it harder to think critically about the piece' at face value.
And even if that claim is true, I personally value real people's sanity more than some abstract concept.
The reason many people attend university is for "abstract concepts." Universities are not strictly trade schools. There's no danger of reading about sexual assaults in a pipefitting and welding class, but when people take classes that more broadly explore the human experience, it should be assumed it might discuss something that isn't sunshine and rainbows.
That, and as has been said multiple times, there is no proof trigger warnings have a significant positive mental health effect, and the recommendation from the professor's union was that mental health be addressed through the office that handles mental health related accommodations, so constructing that dichotomy is flawed in the first place.
There. A well cited, well referenced study concluding that repeated exposure to environmental triggers is both psychologically and physiologically harmful. Trigger warnings would allow students to avoid exposure to environmental triggers. No one is claiming that trigger warnings will magically cure PTSD, in the same way that wheelchair ramps don't cure broken legs. It would be great if their broken legs healed, but in the mean time they have shit to do.
That study neither suggests trigger warnings are the correct solution to this phenomenon, and moreover, it also suggests exactly the opposite, in that said sufferers will become increasingly overreactive to an increasingly broad number of stimuli over time*. So, while a trigger warning on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo might be sufficient today, next year it could be a trigger warning on Looney Toons, because of an attempt to achieve the impossible ideal of an eggshell world instead of using appropriate therapy to treat serious mental disorders.
There's something to be said for having a first aid kit available in your class, but maybe HIST101 isn't the best environment for gunshot victims. Past a given level of dysfunction, university isn't the appropriate place for people, and as said before, there is already an entire department in colleges explicitly for the purpose of determining necessary accommodations for students with physical and mental disabilities.
*I'll exactly quote this part too:
Individuals who develop PTSD have been found to have a progressive evolution of dysfunction as described above. Progressively, they react to the presence of potential threat with greater amplitude or intensity and ultimately develop a generalized overreactivity to a range of stimuli in their civilian and military environments that remind them of the traumatic event. This cycle of increasing reactivity to a widening range of cues in their environment serves to further reinforce the distress response.
Haha what? Alright lets break down the many ways you're misreading the study.
"Thus, it would appear that trauma exposure initiates a process of disruption of an individual’s internal psychophysiology that is then progressively sensitized and kindled with the repeated exposures to triggers."
The paper is saying that it's the repeated exposure to triggers that worsens PTSD, not "They're gonna get worse over time so fuck it". I have no idea where you got that particular idea from. Here, I'll even cite the study THEY cite that reinforces the idea that exposure to triggers causes PTSD to get worse over timehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12136500
That's what "sensitization" means. Note that earlier in this thread someone put forth the conjecture that trigger warnings make PTSD worse because they coddle them or whatever the fuck. This is an example of people talking out of their ass about a condition they don't know anything about to reinforce a previously held belief.
an attempt to achieve the impossible ideal of an eggshell world instead of using appropriate therapy to treat serious mental disorders.
I definitely said that trigger warnings are a replacement for therapy, and that they can cure PTSD. You got me there. If only someone had said multiple times that you're inventing that argument from whole cloth.
Past a given level of dysfunction, university isn't the appropriate place for people
And boom goes the "People with PTSD don't have a right to higher education even though they can be accommodated easily" dynamite. A department that helps with PTSD only seems useful in the event that a student was aware they were taking a class that could trigger them. Maybe professors should have some kind of warning system in place?
e: sorry if the sarcasm is a bit thick in this post, but there seems to be a deliberate misreading of this study to favour an argument that makes no goddamn sense, and I'm getting tired from trying to catch up to these goalposts.
Haha what? Alright lets break down the many ways you're misreading the study.
"Thus, it would appear that trauma exposure initiates a process of disruption of an individual’s internal psychophysiology that is then progressively sensitized and kindled with the repeated exposures to triggers."
The paper is saying that it's the repeated exposure to triggers that worsens PTSD, not "They're gonna get worse over time so fuck it". I have no idea where you got that particular idea from. Here, I'll even cite the study THEY cite that reinforces the idea that exposure to triggers causes PTSD to get worse over timehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12136500
That's what "sensitization" means. Note that earlier in this thread someone put forth the conjecture that trigger warnings make PTSD worse because they coddle them or whatever the fuck. This is an example of people talking out of their ass about a condition they don't know anything about to reinforce a previously held belief.
an attempt to achieve the impossible ideal of an eggshell world instead of using appropriate therapy to treat serious mental disorders.
I definitely said that trigger warnings are a replacement for therapy, and that they can cure PTSD. You got me there. If only someone had said multiple times that you're inventing that argument from whole cloth.
Past a given level of dysfunction, university isn't the appropriate place for people
And boom goes the "People with PTSD don't have a right to higher education even though they can be accommodated easily" dynamite. A department that helps with PTSD only seems useful in the event that a student was aware they were taking a class that could trigger them. Maybe professors should have some kind of warning system in place?
e: sorry if the sarcasm is a bit thick in this post, but there seems to be a deliberate misreading of this study to favour an argument that makes no goddamn sense, and I'm getting tired from trying to catch up to these goalposts.
I'm not misreading it at all. My point, as it always has been, is trying to pretend someone's HIST101 lecture is some terrible, but completely preventable atrocity, when the study you linked gives absolutely not a shred of support to the idea that putting a trigger warning on a play is going to be clinically useful, and again, suggests that due to it being a progressive disorder, Professor Soandso cannot guarantee, without individualized attention, that any given piece of literature is going to be triggering or not.
And Student Disability Services addresses all conditions, not just PTSD, and students should talk to them before starting classes, not after. That's no different than someone who needs additional time to take tests. Don't wait until it becomes a problem, proactively address the issue. Of course, if this is an ideological battle, as it was in Oberlin college, and not about actually addressing the very limited number of students with PTSD, then it sure makes more sense to label thoughtcrime as such, rather than addressing PTSD like any other learning difficulty.
Posts
I think it's at least not a laughable idea that exposure to triggers in a safe realm (reading a book instead of participating in a live action war sim, say, or going to a firing range) might help somebody to cope, at least in the absence of any theraputic evidence one way or the other. That's how some phobias are treated, for instance.
I don't think anyone asserted these things?
An annoying trend for some time now.
So, one of the linked anecdotes draws a directive causative relationship between no trigger warning -> suicide attempt. That's a radically different claim from arguing that warnings prevent people from being surprised about the things they were warned about.
But we arent Doctors
So we put triggers on our shit so we dont expose people to stuff before they are ready
Unless lighting off fire crackers at the veterans hospital is considered "therapy" now
Absolutely.
I'm still waiting for you to show the harm. You mention "chilling effects" and act as if continuing a decades long practice is rushing to provide a solution that could hurt people but don't actually prove how.
that that what this is describing is an endgame where trigger warnings might morph into content ratings for age appropriateness, which is what movies have now.
That's why I kinda want to move away from the use of the phrase Trigger Warnings, at least for this discussion. Something like Contect Discriptions maybe?
These things already exist though, in several rough formats. Genre classifications is one, but is pretty much useless. Reviews is pretty much my go to one, but it involves waiting a week after release, and then shifting through swathes of unwanted information to get what I want.
I heavily curate my viewing, mostly because of time.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I think there's a nagging suspicion, lurking behind a lot of the arguments here, that lots of people who say they're 'triggered' by things don't really have PTSD, but simply prefer not to be exposed to things they don't like. When you have advocates for 'trigger' warning about "racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression" I kinda understand the skepticism that it's really about protecting victims who have suffered horrible experiences.
You're the one proposing the change. If the totality of your argument is that you feel like doing it, with no claims it will help anyone, and no claims that it will not be a net harm, and you hope other people will also feel like doing it, again, with no claims they have any moral responsibility to do so, or will benefit themselves or any other person, then that's great, and I have no problem with that. However, that sort of highly caveated argument is not actually the one being made in the real world, and not even here.
Again, linked in this very thread, someone said their professor almost killed them by not having a trigger warning.
Last page was talking about panic attacks and phobias and warnings of general violence. Thinking back to the woman who left the movie theater, it's not fair to label her as a trauma survivor, as the material could have just been too much for her
PTSD triggers can be exceedingly benign to the average human being, but triggers of stress reactions usually have something unpleasant about them that is magnified in some. Like, a PTSD trigger warning could be "contains dogs," while something that would reliably provoke anxiety could contain "graphic murder scenes," which many people with PTSD may have no problems with if they don't have an underlying anxiety disorder.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I am not proposing change. Content warnings have existed for decades at least but probably centuries. They are nothing new.
And that someone said something stupid doesn't mean the warnings have a "chilling effect."
So, you're saying that if I were a hypothetical professor, who was presenting a rape scene in a movie, I would neither alter my syllabus, nor my initial spoken intro, nor would I pick up a new edition of the film with any caveats? If people are going to be changing things, that is a change. That's what the word means.
The American Association of University Professors certainly believes that they are both potentially harmful and not even the best method to address the problem they are supposed to address.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/31723093/#Comment_31723093
but, a new quote from said article:
I fully subscribe to that statement. It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law. However, try walking into Walmart tomorrow as a 12 year old and buying Bioshock. That will not fly. Ditto movies, ditto music. Ditto any content that is labeled "pornographic," even as an adult, is radically restricted in terms of practical access, however great its artistic merit. Prejudicial labels spontaneously generate censorship, whether it be government attempts, or simply gigantic corporations "helpfully" enforcing community norms.
And what would be your solution then? No ratings or content descriptions at all?
Because something like that will always appear. It's useful information.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
A professor doesn't have to do any of those things. They might because they want to let their students know what's going on. Just like people, I would in fact wager including professors, have been doing for decades/centuries.
Your second link is not a study and you specifically said no anecdotes. Regardless, it does nothing to prove your point. Content ratings have been around forever. Free speech has continued to march on and indeed improve.
Finally, your third claim is simply false. The government can indeed make laws along those lines. It's illegal by federal law to sell obscene material to minors. So not only could a law be made, one has.
But that's neither here nor there. Because labeling the content of items is not a bad thing and you continue to fail to show how it is in any way.
Since the widespread adoption of the internet, it's simultaneously possible to have no ratings or content descriptions on content directly, and the most detailed content descriptions available ever, as I referenced a few pages ago. IMDB tells you more than the MPAA ever did.
Game of Thrones arguably doesn't need a trigger warning, because http://lmgtfy.com/?q=does+Game+of+Thrones+contain+rape? exists
There's a difference between one undergrad giving their opinion on an area outside their area of expertise and the oldest and largest library association in the world giving their formal position on matter related to library content, which is largely unchanged in over half a century, and is obviously correct, being as labeling has consistently led to de facto or de jure censorship within the US.
You should tell the Supreme Court that: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-sale-violent-video-games-minors-constitutional/story?id=13916518
No, you just choose not to recognize it as harmful.
Right, so content descriptions exist. I'm aware of them, and I use them.
I did mention that I would prefer a better system with more information, something between the SNLV labels and full on scene break down reviews.
Is it the fact that they put the labels directly on the boxes? Because again, if you take those off, someone else will just put them back on.
They serve a purpose that people find useful.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Just as no one in this thread apparently thinks that professors should be required to use trigger warnings, similarly no one thinks they should be prohibited from doing so. As I understand it, any attempt to prohibit a professor from using trigger warnings if they deemed them pedagogically appropriate would be a violation of academic freedom and you can bet the AAUP and etc. would by all means be against it.
Nonetheless, their position gives some reasons to think that, even if professors should be allowed to adopt trigger warnings, it may not be a good idea. I more or less endorse them: trigger warnings can suggest to students both that complex literary works are really about a handful of simple topics and then also what their response to those topics 'should' be. This undermines much of the value of student engagement with those works, where they are expected to develop their own interpretive skills rather than relying on a prepackaged understanding. Given that there are other avenues for treating actual PTSD cases, I think these are good reasons to think that trigger warnings are a bad idea.
'Why not do both?' seems to be the response. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. There are two ways to test for the clap: they can do a pee test, and they can take a urethral swab. Both work, but the downside of the urethral swab is that it hurts like hell. So, naturally, it's preferable to do the pee test instead. Similarly, if we have multiple ways for accomodating actual PTSD cases among the university population, then it's natural to avoid the ones with bad side effects. Student health services and the legal disability framework are adequate to the goal and lack the downside of interfering with the educational mission. So they're to be preferred.
For reference, since the AAUP position statement mentions it: the American Library Association's position on content warnings is somewhat complicated. They support what they call 'viewpoint-neutral directional aids.' I assume these would include, e.g., filing a book under 'early American war literature.' After all, part of the librarian's job is to help you find the books that you want to read. However, they reject 'prejudicial labels.' And by these I assume they mean labels like 'subversive material.' The difference, as they see it, is that the former are a convenience that helps users, whereas the latter constitute an illicit attempt to impose value judgments on content in an effort to encourage certain reader responses while discouraging others. This they take to be contrary to the mission of the library system.
Trigger warnings may look like neutral directional aids--just describing the content for the interested reader--however, they are unlikely to square with the library association's approach: the library association emphasizes that what might look like mere descriptive labeling can in practice become prejudicial. It seems clear to me that essentially all of the 'out there' trigger warnings would satisfy this condition. 'Heterosexism,' 'ableism,' etc. are all labels that include a substantial, controversial, and negative value judgment. Even if they look like descriptions, in function they have the bad features of prejudicial labels. Given that they feel similarly about labels like 'contains mild violence' (mild according to who, they ask?) I imagine that it would be hard to square their approach with even the less 'out there' warnings.
Nonetheless, although they refuse to add content warnings to the bibliographic record, and will not themselves endorse them, they will still refrain from removing content warnings that come already packaged with the works they acquire. This is probably the extent to which their practice is compatible with trigger warnings. And, of course, I'm sure that any librarian would work individually with someone who has PTSD triggers to help find reading material that would be suitable. As before, it is the value-judgments encoded in labeling systems they oppose, not the directional aid. And it's not like they're monsters or something.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. I'm not sure you do, either.
What point is there in separating warnings out between PTSD and anxiety?
This concept baffles me to a ridiculous degree and I am not sure how B follows A here, unless you have just really really fucked up how you are alerting people who may be triggered by whatever the applicable potential anxiety or trauma trigger is. It also seems rather insulting to the intelligence of the audience in question to not be able to see past any interpretations of a work's question beyond what is a potential anxiety or trauma trigger.
I agree.
MrMister's analogy is not good at all. These warnings are not about the treatment of a problem. They are about avoiding the expression of symptoms, or just showing some consideration for the traumatised.
Comparing telling someone that Edward Bond's Lear is going to be pretty violent and shocking, or that there is rape in Titus Andronicus, to sticking something in your urethra is such a poor analogy I am astonished it was made in the first place.
And how actually common are 'malingerers' who lie and claim to be traumatised so that they don't have to see Da Vinci's Leda and the Swan?
Dude, you don't need to break every dingle sentence down in to a new quote. It's terrible.
Anecdote is still anecdote. You said no anecdotes. Please don't be a hypocrite. Your link does not prove your point. It is illegal to sell obscene material to minors as per 18 U.S.C. § 1470. Your link addresses an attempt by California to broaden that power. And while it was struck down it doesn't change the fact that the power itself does exist. And finally if you would actually show actual harm it would be far more convincing. But I have decades/centuries of history of content warnings existing. You have yet to show what terrible harm they've caused. HBO continues to exist despite showing TV-MA before Game of Thrones.
Oh for fuck's sake.
I never said anyone claimed they should be prohibited. Can we stop making the assumption that others are claiming people should be forced to do anything? It's dishonest and happens damn near every page.
Just curious what your position is.
Let's take a benign example here.
Think back to before you ever watched The Sixth Sense.
Imagine if, before walking into the movie, someone had told you, "OMG the TWIST ENDING is amazing; you'll never see it coming!" Would you have watched the movie in the same way?
Or, maybe, someone did tell you that the movie had a twist ending. Did you spend your time watching it trying to figure out the twist?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
The Sixth Sense had a big sign up at the start saying 'This movie has a twist. Please don't spoil it for anyone.'
It ruined the twist, which took me about 3 minutes to work out.
And you know what? I couldn't give the ghost of a shit. It spoiled a movie for me. Obviously nobody actually needs trigger warnings about the Sixth Sense, but it is just a movie. It's a million times less important than even one person spending a night at home sobbing.
This whole thing seems like a really uninspired "problem" that is easy to solve. Make it mandatory that, if a class is going to include a book with rape in it, that you have to say "Hey, some of the material we'll be covering will deal with potentially triggering topics like rape and suicide. If any of you guys have problems with that you can come talk to me or shoot me an email and I'll give you more details". Or, get a trigger warning directory in the school bookstore/library. Or have a website they can go to. Or tap it in morse code. There are so many ways to counter this minor drawback that my bullshitometer is going off.
I also find it interesting that in this thread there were so many requests for scientific proof that avoiding things that trigger people will cause people to avoid being triggered, but everyone is taking the dubious claim that 'knowing a piece of literature contains rape will make it harder to think critically about the piece' at face value.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
And even if that claim is true, I personally value real people's sanity more than some abstract concept.
Oh, god, stop being a goose. Obscenity is a specific standard above and beyond violent, Mature rating, or pornography. My exact quote was: " It is not against the law for kids to buy M rated video games. In fact, it is unconstitutional to make such a law," which is factually true, because no M rated video game is going to get hit by the obscenity classification. 2 Girls, 1 Cup is obscenity, Halo isn't even especially violent as far as the action genre goes.
Secondly, there is a difference between 75 years of experts delivering the formal position of a professional organization and one person saying their actions are someone else's fault. That should be so mind blowingly obvious as to make it absurd for me even to have to type it out.
And lastly, you quote centuries of these existing, and yet pretend the Comics Code Authority never existed, or any number of other censor regimes. Also, the term "chilling effect" was coined by the Supreme Court in it overturning attempted censorship and oppression of people for being Communist or wanting to read Communist materials, so your claim that centuries of content warnings* haven't produced the whisper of censorship is particularly rich. You might want to argue something closer to, "In the last few years, no formal government censorship regime tied to content warnings has survived very long without a sucessful a constitutional challenge," which is more accurate, and conveniently ignores all the private sector censorship that a handful in this thread want to pretend doesn't count.
* After all, in Lamont v. Postmaster General, it wasn't illegal to have Communist material per se, the government just assisted people in helpfully detaining anything with a 'content warning' unless they specifically requested it.
The reason many people attend university is for "abstract concepts." Universities are not strictly trade schools. There's no danger of reading about sexual assaults in a pipefitting and welding class, but when people take classes that more broadly explore the human experience, it should be assumed it might discuss something that isn't sunshine and rainbows.
That, and as has been said multiple times, there is no proof trigger warnings have a significant positive mental health effect, and the recommendation from the professor's union was that mental health be addressed through the office that handles mental health related accommodations, so constructing that dichotomy is flawed in the first place.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816923/
There. A well cited, well referenced study concluding that repeated exposure to environmental triggers is both psychologically and physiologically harmful. Trigger warnings would allow students to avoid exposure to environmental triggers. No one is claiming that trigger warnings will magically cure PTSD, in the same way that wheelchair ramps don't cure broken legs. It would be great if their broken legs healed, but in the mean time they have shit to do.
That study neither suggests trigger warnings are the correct solution to this phenomenon, and moreover, it also suggests exactly the opposite, in that said sufferers will become increasingly overreactive to an increasingly broad number of stimuli over time*. So, while a trigger warning on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo might be sufficient today, next year it could be a trigger warning on Looney Toons, because of an attempt to achieve the impossible ideal of an eggshell world instead of using appropriate therapy to treat serious mental disorders.
There's something to be said for having a first aid kit available in your class, but maybe HIST101 isn't the best environment for gunshot victims. Past a given level of dysfunction, university isn't the appropriate place for people, and as said before, there is already an entire department in colleges explicitly for the purpose of determining necessary accommodations for students with physical and mental disabilities.
*I'll exactly quote this part too:
The paper is saying that it's the repeated exposure to triggers that worsens PTSD, not "They're gonna get worse over time so fuck it". I have no idea where you got that particular idea from. Here, I'll even cite the study THEY cite that reinforces the idea that exposure to triggers causes PTSD to get worse over time http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12136500
That's what "sensitization" means. Note that earlier in this thread someone put forth the conjecture that trigger warnings make PTSD worse because they coddle them or whatever the fuck. This is an example of people talking out of their ass about a condition they don't know anything about to reinforce a previously held belief.
I definitely said that trigger warnings are a replacement for therapy, and that they can cure PTSD. You got me there. If only someone had said multiple times that you're inventing that argument from whole cloth.
And boom goes the "People with PTSD don't have a right to higher education even though they can be accommodated easily" dynamite. A department that helps with PTSD only seems useful in the event that a student was aware they were taking a class that could trigger them. Maybe professors should have some kind of warning system in place?
e: sorry if the sarcasm is a bit thick in this post, but there seems to be a deliberate misreading of this study to favour an argument that makes no goddamn sense, and I'm getting tired from trying to catch up to these goalposts.
I'm not misreading it at all. My point, as it always has been, is trying to pretend someone's HIST101 lecture is some terrible, but completely preventable atrocity, when the study you linked gives absolutely not a shred of support to the idea that putting a trigger warning on a play is going to be clinically useful, and again, suggests that due to it being a progressive disorder, Professor Soandso cannot guarantee, without individualized attention, that any given piece of literature is going to be triggering or not.
And Student Disability Services addresses all conditions, not just PTSD, and students should talk to them before starting classes, not after. That's no different than someone who needs additional time to take tests. Don't wait until it becomes a problem, proactively address the issue. Of course, if this is an ideological battle, as it was in Oberlin college, and not about actually addressing the very limited number of students with PTSD, then it sure makes more sense to label thoughtcrime as such, rather than addressing PTSD like any other learning difficulty.