Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

as for the gay thing, there's an actual debate in places regarding that, whether "gay" should be a content warning or not. It's not a clear-cut yes or no to whether or not to do it, people actually involved (and not just condemning it from outside with no understanding) are arguing about whether "gay content" should be warned about. I don't believe it's necessarily because "people might have been abused by a gay person!" but it's still a debate ongoing.

[Neonivek]

Ohh content warnings for homosexual content? I remember that!

Bully was a game that there were a lot of attempts to give it a M rating. While the internet at the time thought this was because of its "relatable violence" (In that you played a Child abusing other children) and thus there was a lot of debate as to whether it should get this M rating.

As we found out later (or at the time) was that it IN FACT was about to receive a M rating because the male protagonist could kiss with other boys (in fact, there were just as many male candidates as female. Though the male ones didn't have missions or much story presence).

The ESRB basically said F-That and kept it as T... proving that the ESRB is still functionally 100x better than both the Movie and Television rating system.

[Descan]

... Okay... That's not really what I was talking about at all. The debate is a biiiit more modern than that. In the last six months, apparently.

[alway]

i had a whole thing written out but i realized that i don't actually care to try and respond to hypothetical situations that don't actually happen and anecdotes that amount to "hey some people are hypocritical assholes."

I think my one was a realistic situation that does actually happen. e.g. someone who was sexually assaulted as a child by the same sex definitely happens, and they could easily have PTSD triggered by seeing same-sex depictions. I'd put money on this being a real thing.

But if they then asked for content warnings for same-sex depictions, how would people respond to that? They know how people would probably respond (labeling them homophobic, getting verbal abuse, social exclusion), so they don't actually ask for the protection they should probably be entitled to.

As a medical issue, said person would be entitled to privacy on the matter, and so it would be handled privately between the speaker and the listener. Stopping in the middle of a lecture to essentially yell "HEY, YO, YOU IN SEAT 107 WHO WAS ABUSED AS A CHILD, YOU CAN LEAVE FOR THE NEXT FEW MINUTES IF YOU NEED TO, SINCE WE'RE ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT THAT STUFF." would absolutely not be okay, any more than discussing any other part of their medical history in front of others without their express consent. To the point where they may have grounds to sue if they were called out in such a manner.

[EnigmaticHat]

I gave an example where the person would exactly have PTSD.

The thing is I know someone who has PTSD from being raped and its not like how you describe.  All of their triggers they've described to me are things pretty directly related to the rape itself; either to details of the attacker or more generally to the concept of non-consensual sex.  And yes, they actually have been triggered by an internet post.  Not in the ironic making fun of SJWs sense, like actually having a serious reaction.

Now you are right that sometimes triggers can be things that are not entirely obvious, and its true that the more intangible or harmless triggers cannot be worked around.    But the obvious ones can be worked around.  Like don't show people graphic depictions (written, audible or visual) of rape with no warning, because it actually can effect people.  Someone who is triggered by gay kissing, well I mean they'd be an internet troll, but if that was a thing for some reason than asking for warnings there would not be a reasonable request.

Your example is in poor taste.  Rape is not in the same category as normal romance or sex.  Nobody is asking anyone to take down or label images of kissing.  Indeed trigger warnings are not supposed to apply even to porn unless that porn simulates rape in some way.

[Reelya]

Someone who is triggered by gay kissing, well I mean they'd be an internet troll, but if that was a thing

You're mocking potential abuse sufferers as trolls because they might be triggered by things you don't approve of? What if the abuser did that specific thing to them, and that's why it causes them stress? Clearly such a thing as I described happens and they'd have every reason on Earth to be distressed by what I said.

But I'm putting money on the fact that such people exist but they don't speak up about their triggers, precisely because people mock and dismiss their triggers as "being in poor taste", because they don't fit the list of approved triggers.

[Rolan7]

and content warnings in practice aren't a "blacklist of topics you CANNOT SPEAK ABOUT" it's just a preamble before potentially upsetting content to warn about said content. Like, people talk about censorship, but *what censorship?* The content being warned about is still talked about, it's still posted. It just has a bit of a warning beforehand, same as "you might want to sit down for this," can be followed by the person saying "I'm not in a good position to hear bad news right now," which would be the equivalent of a student with a trigger for that leaving the classroom. Unless you have an audience of one person who goes "no I can't deal with that right now," at no point are you prevented from talking about or posting your content. You're not being censored whatsoever.

This

And it's honestly tragic if someone is triggered by two men kissing.  Some people do get accidentally triggered by things which happen in public.  Victims of heterosexual rape have to deal with heterosexual PDAs too.  It's sad, but we can't sterilize public areas enough for everyone to be safe.

That's not what "trigger warning" is about, though.

[Neonivek]

How... did the house pass a bill in secret? Yet alone a healthcare bill.

How the heck does that work? How do you even keep it secret FROM THE HOUSE ITSELF!?!

I thought they were just going to keep it secret until they voted on it, after which it would HAVE to be made public.

[EnigmaticHat]

Someone who is triggered by gay kissing, well I mean they'd be an internet troll, but if that was a thing

You're mocking potential abuse sufferers as trolls because they might be triggered by things you don't approve of? What if the abuser did that specific thing to them, and that's why it causes them stress? Clearly such a thing as I described happens and they'd have every reason on Earth to be distressed by what I said.

But I'm putting money on the fact that such people exist but they don't speak up about their triggers, precisely because people mock and dismiss their triggers as "being in poor taste", because they don't fit the list of approved triggers.

Edit: Okay, no, I get it.  That was a bad wording.  Someone who asked for a trigger warning for gay people kissing, there.  If someone asks for a rape trigger warning for gay people kissing they're a troll.  If they're actually triggered by that they're just unlucky.

You're being intentionally obtuse.  The word troll implies lying about your motivations.  And I have said repeatedly in multiple gender discussions you yourself have taken part in that yes I do believe men can be rape victims.  It shouldn't have been that hard to infer my meaning here.

[Neonivek]

How... did the house pass a bill in secret? Yet alone a healthcare bill.

How the heck does that work? How do you even keep it secret FROM THE HOUSE ITSELF!?!

I thought they were just going to keep it secret until they voted on it, after which it would HAVE to be made public.

...you mean the Senate? Senate has to pass it, last I checked, then send it back to the House to be re-passed before Trump can sign it.

Apparently it got all the way through the house secretly, so secret that even the house doesn't know what it is...

It is some sort of WEIRD new Healthcare Bill that is secret.

What is the story I don't understand it.

[MrRoboto75]

It is some sort of WEIRD new Healthcare Bill that is secret.

Probably because its an abortion of lawmaking that will undeniably screw over millions.  Career suicide if voters knew.

But conservatives gotta conserve.

[Neonivek]

It is some sort of WEIRD new Healthcare Bill that is secret.

Probably because its an abortion of lawmaking that will undeniably screw over millions.  Career suicide if voters knew.

But conservatives gotta conserve.

Well yeah, but how does that even work?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Unless you have some insider source, AHCA Mk. III is through neither the House nor the Senate. The Senate Republicans have not even finished the bill, which is why it is still secret.

[Reelya]

Basic content warnings are one thing, I haven't seen anyone objecting to those. Saying people don't want the basic "this media contains XYZ" is itself a strawman.

http://nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-b-c-teacher-fired-for-having-the-wrong-opinion/wcm/894a7ea5-0b29-44f5-be70-7072c3c1733a
In Canada for example, a teacher fired for merely mentioning being pro-life because a student said they were triggered:

“I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”

That was it, the teacher said. “It was just a quick exemplar, nothing more. And we moved on.”

A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man.

But if someone was pro-life and said they were triggered and felt unsafe because of being in a room full of angry pro-choice people ... good luck with that:

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/26/news/la-ol-ucsb-professor-pro-life-demonstrator-trauma-trigger-censorship-20140325

Mireille Miller-Young, a feminist studies professor at UC Santa Barbara, has been charged with battery, vandalism and theft after she allegedly stole and destroyed the sign of an antiabortion protester on campus and then pushed and scratched the 16-year-old when she tried to grab her sign back.
...
It's Miller-Young's excuse for her deed: that she was "triggered" by images in the protesters' materials

Being triggered makes physical assault ok now? She had to beat up people holding an opposing view because they made her feel unsafe? If anything pro-life people have every reason to feel unsafe on college campuses. They hold a very unpopular point of view and can't let a peep out about it lest they get reported to the authorities or beaten up. Both sides have a good claim to feel unsafe here.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive

In the early days of feminist blogging, trigger warnings were generally about sexual assault, and posted with the understanding that lots of women are sexual assault survivors, lots of women read feminist blogs, and graphic descriptions of rape might lead to panic attacks or other reactions that will really ruin someone's day.
...
Trigger warnings in online spaces, though, have expanded widely and become more intricate, detailed, specific and obscure. Trigger warnings, and their cousin the "content note", are now included for a whole slew of potentially offensive or upsetting content, including but not limited to: misogyny, the death penalty, calories in a food item, terrorism, drunk driving, how much a person weighs, racism, gun violence, Stand Your Ground laws, drones, homophobia, PTSD, slavery, victim-blaming, abuse, swearing, child abuse, self-injury, suicide, talk of drug use, descriptions of medical procedures, corpses, skulls, skeletons, needles, discussion of "isms," neuroatypical shaming, slurs (including "stupid" or "dumb"), kidnapping, dental trauma, discussions of sex (even consensual), death or dying, spiders, insects, snakes, vomit, pregnancy, childbirth, blood, scarification, Nazi paraphernalia, slimy things, holes and "anything that might inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD".
...
Which doesn't mean that individual students should not be given mental health accommodations. It's perfectly reasonable for a survivor of violence to ask a professor for a heads up if the reading list includes a piece with graphic descriptions of rape or violence, for example. But generalized trigger warnings aren't so much about helping people with PTSD as they are about a certain kind of performative feminism: they're a low-stakes way to use the right language to identify yourself as conscious of social justice issues.
...
There is real harm in utilizing general trigger warnings in the classroom. Oberlin College recommends that its faculty "remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals". When material is simply too important to take out entirely, the college recommends trigger warnings. For example, Oberlin says, Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a great and important book, but:

    … it may trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide, and more.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

"I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me"
I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate.  That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either.

The point I'm making of course is that it's not just about content warnings (actually it's not about the content warnings at all really). It's about how the process of enforced content warnings itself can have a chilling effect on the range of material discussed, which could dampen intellectual debate.

[Strife26]

Yeah. We're in a post marketplace of ideas society, didn't you hear? Don't answer that question, because any answer you get will only make the dogpile worse.