TRIGGER WARNING: Trigger Warnings

Alessandra Kelley said:

What exactly is wrong with working in a nonviolent way for social justice?

Click to expand...

Nothing at all. But sometimes the ways in which some people believe social justice should be achieved are at odds with the ways in which other people believe social justice should be achieved. This may result in some people viewing those with whom they disagree in a negative light.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Two things:

1. I put it to you sir, that given your posts in the torture thread, not to mention your strong positions taken in the atheism and comparative religion boards, that you are a Social Justice Warrior.

2. Arguments about tactics need to be just that. The questions of how a better society can be brought about will involve a lot of trial and error (as with any such process). This debate about the utility of Trigger Warnings can be done without labeling people.

Click to expand...

Social Justice advocates, with or without the self-important capitalization and satirical "Warrior" suffix, tend to have a specific approach to social justice issues, largely centered around issues of language use and post-modernist deconstruction, "privilege theory," and the like.

I do believe in social justice, which was rather my point.

On the other hand, I do not believe in scrubbing words like 'lame," "crazy," and "stupid" from our vocabulary because they're "ableist," or putting trigger warnings on everything that might possibly upset someone. And there are areas where my priorities are likely to differ from self-styled SJWs.

The goal - ending injustice, sexism, racism, homophobia, other forms of discrimination - is something most people share. It's the tactics where SJWs and people who dislike SJWs tend to find themselves in conflict even if they ostensibly have an end goal in common.

Amadan said:

Social Justice advocates, with or without the self-important capitalization and satirical "Warrior" suffix, tend to have a specific approach to social justice issues, largely centered around issues of language use and post-modernist deconstruction, "privilege theory," and the like.

Click to expand...

Privilege exists. I don't think there's much point in arguing otherwise.

And yes, I think language is a powerful tool for oppression.

Personally, I hope we can soon live in a world where "redsk*n" is as unacceptable as "n*gger".

Does that make me on of those Social Justice Warrior strawmen?

I've seen some self-styled SJWs use the moniker proudly, others seem to dislike it. I find it a practical label because I'm talking about a specific subgroup - which is relevant because so often someone will ask "But wait, don't you believe in social justice?"

To answer your other question, yes, of course. But part of that change involves hashing out the terms and the reasoning, and I don't think "Can anyone construct any kind of objection?" is a useful rubric, and in fact is often a counterproductive one.

kuwisdelu said:

Privilege exists. I don't think there's much point in arguing otherwise.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing otherwise.

And yes, I think language is a powerful tool for oppression.

Personally, I hope we can soon live in a world where "redsk*n" is as unacceptable as "n*gger".

Does that make me on of those Social Justice Warrior strawmen?

Click to expand...

No.

There is middle ground between the extremes of the "Social Justice" movement that began the issue this thread is about - use and overuse of "trigger warnings" - and people who think equality and social justice and wanting to avoid offensive language is stupid. Not being fond of the people at one pole does not mean one is aligned with the other.

Amadan said:

There is middle ground between the extremes of the "Social Justice" movement that began the issue this thread is about - use and overuse of "trigger warnings" - and people who think equality and social justice and wanting to avoid offensive language is stupid. Not being fond of the people at one pole does not mean one is aligned with the other.

Click to expand...

Sure. People on the same side of an issue still disagree often.

I guess I'm just not sure what the big deal is or why I should care.

Here's how I see it (and I have no triggers myself so this may be way off):

To me, triggers are like allergies. You are basically allergic and get a reaction when you are confronted with something. It's not voluntary, so you can't really choose not to get the reaction. You can't "toughen up" and not go into anaphylactic shock by sheer force of will. A real, genuine case of PTSD is similar from what I gather.

Allergies is one reason the content of food stuff is usually declared on the package. When there's something that is a not an uncommon allergy that may be fatal, like nuts, it's not unusual to to put a warning label "may contain nuts" on it. I have so far never heard anyone not allergic to nuts be bothered by those labels (but I may simply not have spoken to the right people; maybe there are nut label haters out there too). More unusual allergies aren't broadcasted like that because you can't have warning labels for every ingredient, but people who have them are used to being careful and checking the content listing.

Then there are people who just don't like the taste of something. This ranges from "tastes bad" to "vomit", sometimes because you don't like it and sometimes because you associate it with a prior experience of food poisoning for example. If you mistakenly eat something you can't stand, it's not harmful but may be unpleasant and you'd probably rather avoid it.

Applied to triggers, this would read: a not uncommon, strong trigger is probably rape. Just like nuts, a warning label (trigger warning) seems reasonable. People with more uncommon triggers will probably have to learn to act with caution, because a) you cannot warn against everything because it loses the effect b) you can't predict all triggers c) it places unreasonable onus on the rest of the world. These people are helped by reasonable content declarations though; so insofar it's possible, great idea. This helps the people who just want to avoid certain topics too. It's in everybody's interest since it may make people trust a source more in the future.

So, in general, it's good if everybody lists things that may be problematic, either because some people want to avoid it or because it makes some people ill. No trigger warning should be necessary, just name the ingredient. "Graphic violence", "spiders" or whatever. Or give it an informative title, or whatever other solution fits the situation. Does no one any harm and probably keeps everybody happy. But also, if you really hate something, act with caution. Think before you click or read. You can't put all the responsibility on other people who cannot read your mind.

BUT with some things that are commonly known to trigger a not insignificant number of people and cause them harm (like rape), do like nuts. Put a trigger warning on it, and if you are not allergic, don't read the label. It's not directed at you.

IMO, sometimes meeting each other half ways and being a bit pragmatic isn't such a bad idea compared to grand-standing over the Principle Of The Thing. Even if "warrior" is a lovely, dramatic word (or pejorative if you are so inclined), it's not really a war, is it?

Me, I'm usually a social justice rogue or social justice bard, depending on the edition in use...

Maybe that makes me a social justice anti-paladin.

Amadan said:

I've seen some self-styled SJWs use the moniker proudly, others seem to dislike it. I find it a practical label because I'm talking about a specific subgroup - which is relevant because so often someone will ask "But wait, don't you believe in social justice?"

Click to expand...

If a term is so vague that every time you use it in conversation you have a page or more of people confused over whether it refers to them or not, I think it's kind of the opposite of practical.

I almost always see SJW used as a pejorative, usually by people who aren't actually into social justice. Many people use it as a code-word to identify themselves to each other. Not as a conspiracy, but just a convenience. So I don't think it's a useful term unless that's the set of connotations you intend to evoke.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I almost always see SJW used as a pejorative, usually by people who aren't actually into social justice. Many people use it as a code-word to identify themselves to each other. Not as a conspiracy, but just a convenience. So I don't think it's a useful term unless that's the set of connotations you intend to evoke.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I see it used the same way people use "politically correct" - as an accusation that someone else over-cares about something, or maybe doesn't care at all, but is pretending to because that's what their crowd demands.

It's a pretty insulting thing to say, really. Which I think Amadan knows, and that's why he's using it.

Captcha said:

Yeah, I see it used the same way people use "politically correct" - as an accusation that someone else over-cares about something, or maybe doesn't care at all, but is pretending to because that's what their crowd demands.

It's a pretty insulting thing to say, really. Which I think Amadan knows, and that's why he's using it.

Click to expand...

I've already stated what I believe and what the term means to me.

Amadan said:

I've already stated what I believe and what the term means to me.

Click to expand...

The feedback you are getting is what the crowd is seeing so take that as you will.

I do have a pet peeve about 'Trigger Warnings' that I ran into just yesterday while browsing the web. If you are going to mark something with those words, put the topic it's for, for Pete's sake!

I happen to be fine with reading about bombings yet I'm not usually interested in reading in detail about ED, for instance (I can still get triggered by personal ED confessions/desires all these years later -- on rare occasion). It depends on my mood, but I'd like to know what I'm getting into. Isn't that the whole point of them if you use the label?

TRIGGER WARNING!
*Opens link the read intro and runs into a huge picture of a roach* Blegh, argh... I'm eating breakfast, etc

I appreciate trigger warnings because on some days I can read anything sexual abuse related and it doesn't bother me in the least. But on those days where just a whisper will send me spiraling, I see 'Trigger Warning' and I step away. It all depends on the mood I am in. And, yes...it has become a catch phrase of late. I put everything back to PENN STATE. For me, that's where public awareness and the spark of change began. That case, more than any other, was a breakout case that caused thousands and thousands of victims to seek help. If trigger warning is overused, I don't really give a damn. Some of us appreciate the warnings on our bad days. (-:

KTC said:

I appreciate trigger warnings because on some days I can read anything sexual abuse related and it doesn't bother me in the least. But on those days where just a whisper will send me spiraling, I see 'Trigger Warning' and I step away. It all depends on the mood I am in. (-:

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I disagree with the portion of the article that says that trigger warnings may do more harm than good to people who actually suffer from PTSD. The author seems to think that a trigger warning is essentially telling someone to not read the text, and that by treating PTSD sufferers with kid gloves in the form of a warning, it will make things worse.

Actually, it's just giving people a heads-up. Sure they may decide not to proceed, but they may just take a deep breath and dive into reading. Generally, it's easier to deal with something unpleasant if you have some warning and can mentally prepare yourself.

That said, I do agree that applying trigger warnings across the board in place of a simple contents note (or descriptive title) is ridiculously overkill. It waters down the effectiveness of something that could truely help people if used judiciously.

Tazlima said:

Generally, it's easier to deal with something unpleasant if you have some warning and can mentally prepare yourself.

Click to expand...

This EXACTLY. In my mens group we discuss this...we kind of cheerlead each other to face triggers...especially in print/online media of late. As someone who has recently stepped into a more public role, as activist, I want to know the latest news on issues that may come into conversation with victims. Before I never read the news...I never knew what people were talking about. I do find that the warnings help to steel resolve. I'd rather be told to brace myself than get suckerpunched.