Political Ocean's 11

[aluminiumtrioxid]

*Warning - This play contains graphic violence* is the same as fight or flight panic mode? Wowwee wow wow. If that is the state that people operate in then honestly I just pity them. That's not to far from being legitimately mentally challenged. 

 

Uhh... I'm genuinely happy that neither you nor anybody close to you has ever experienced rape and the kind of trauma it can inflict, but I'm not 100% sure that this warrants the kind of casual cruelty where you're describing people who are in actual pain and distress as "not far from being legitimately mentally challenged".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I would have never thought the equivalent of a graphic content warning would be so triggering.

[Blarghagh]

 

*Warning - This play contains graphic violence* is the same as fight or flight panic mode? Wowwee wow wow. If that is the state that people operate in then honestly I just pity them. That's not to far from being legitimately mentally challenged. 

 

Uhh... I'm genuinely happy that neither you nor anybody close to you has ever experienced rape and the kind of trauma it can inflict, but I'm not 100% sure that this warrants the kind of casual cruelty where you're describing people who are in actual pain and distress as "not far from being legitimately mentally challenged".

 

 

Agreed.

[Malcador]

I would have never thought the equivalent of a graphic content warning would be so triggering.

Well consider who is taking issue with it, it shouldn't be a surprise

[Gfted1]

If people need trigger warnings about works of FICTION, then thats on them. But I am magnanimous so I would like to inform you that the bogeyman in not under your bed. Or in your closet.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I would have never thought the equivalent of a graphic content warning would be so triggering.

Well consider who is taking issue with it, it shouldn't be a surprise

I guess Hollywood really was the Cultural Marxist Vanguard by using a rating system for films.

[Blarghagh]

If people need trigger warnings about works of FICTION, then thats on them. But I am magnanimous so I would like to inform you that the bogeyman in not under your bed. Or in your closet.

 

Apparently, it's in the concept of trigger warnings considering how goddamn superior everyone has to prove themselves as some kind of proof that nobody should ever place one.

[Amentep]

 

 

I don't understand what's so bad about giving someone information they can make an informed decision about themselves.

 

I think there are two main concerns -

 

Does it help?  If the student still has to experience the 'triggering' content does knowing about it actually make a difference?

 

Does it hurt?  If the student continues to avoid triggering content, are they keeping themselves from healing over the long term?

 

 

 

...How are these even questions? Literally everybody I spoke to who actually attends or lectures at university told me that yes, these things are useful, yes, they help students cope with material that is difficult for them to process, and no, nobody is actually exempt from the normal requirements for successfully completing the course. Trigger warnings don't exist to protect the precious fee-fees of students, they exist to allow them to digest the texts on their own terms. I can't believe there are people who are arguing - no doubt from a position of ignorance, but ignorance should not be an excuse - that there is a positive societal value in expecting people to engage in a demanding intellectual activity while in a state of fight-or-flight panic mode as opposed to, y'know, giving them a heads-up that 'hey, this material might be difficult, so go ahead, take a minute, and prepare yourself so you can engage with it properly'.

 

 

There are some from the psychology/psychiatry area who argue (or have argued, I'm not up to date on it so they may have had further research) that trigger warnings only cause more issues than they solve (I think Richard McNally at Harvard and Metin Basoglu at King's College are the two I remember reading comments from).  At the core of their view was the idea that avoidance not only does not alleviate, but instead may worsen, PTSD (and I believe Basoglu further claims that it can further feelings of helplessness and depression as well).

[Malcador]

 

 

I would have never thought the equivalent of a graphic content warning would be so triggering.

Well consider who is taking issue with it, it shouldn't be a surprise

I guess Hollywood really was the Cultural Marxist Vanguard by using a rating system for films.

Pretty much all the 'concern' about this is, no matter what they dress it up as. Wonder if the tune changes if you talk about vets ventilating their skulls.

[Blarghagh]

Vets with PTSD deserve trigger warnings too.

[Gfted1]

I cant actually parse that TN but I can tell youre upset. Let me try a different angle...everything is not one or zero.

 

You see this image:

 

 

Its a fire warning. This type of warning is good.

 

Having to post a warning about every possible trauma, which if not posted will result in ABJECT TERROR (), is dumb. Heres a few more good ones to help out those that need it: water can drown you, fire can burn you (see above), electricity can electrocute you, falling from height can break bones, don't eat yellow snow and its dark outside when your location on Earth has rotated away from the sun. All of these examples are totes legit issues people can and do have. Ill try to think up some more when I have time.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I liked a recently ended show called the Strain. Before it started there would be "Caution, viewer discretions is advised" with information that it contained violence or sexual situations or whatever. Putting that of something similar on a play bill or in a book isn't a big deal and I highly doubt any warning will be more than that. Doesn't affect the programing and will probably be ignored for the most part.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

So children will be warned if they're raped?

 

Well children are already warned billion times about creeps in vans and they are not suppose to walk around alone at 11pm. C'mon you know what I mean

 

 

My wife was raped in broad daylight by a friend of the family. She was 9. Try again.

 

 

Sorry to hear that.

[Amentep]

Having to post a warning about every possible trauma, which if not posted will result in ABJECT TERROR ( ), is dumb.

The best intention of a trigger warning is to try to allow the PTSD sufferer to prepare themselves as best as possible for something that may "put them back" at the point of their trauma (which may be terrifying, but isn't necessary a state of 'abject terror').  As I mentioned I think the psychological science on the subject is divided over it from my own (admittedly limited) reading, but I'm not sure in and of itself is a dumb idea.  If a strict avoidance is helpful in recovery, then clearly it'd be the opposite of dumb to encourage.  If - as some of the literature I've read is true - that it may not help the long term recovery of a PTSD sufferer, than I'd argue its misguided rather than dumb.

[Blarghagh]

I cant actually parse that TN but I can tell youre upset. Let me try a different angle...everything is not one or zero.

 

You see this image:

 

 

Its a fire warning. This type of warning is good.

 

Having to post a warning about every possible trauma, which if not posted will result in ABJECT TERROR (), is dumb. Heres a few more good ones to help out those that need it: water can drown you, fire can burn you (see above), electricity can electrocute you, falling from height can break bones, don't eat yellow snow and its dark outside when your location on Earth has rotated away from the sun. All of these examples are totes legit issues people can and do have. Ill try to think up some more when I have time.

Yeah, none of those things are comparable. I'm just as confounded that that toothpicks have warnings about pointy ends as you are. If they were, I'm still not sure why this is the one where the line must be drawn.

 

But this isn't 'gosh, boiling water might be hot'. This is more like 'the ingredients should state there's peanuts because I have allergies that could cause serious damage or death'. Remove the 'you shouldn't microwave your cat' warnings all you want, knock yourself out. This is and will never be one of them.

 

Either way, I still don't get your problem. You just said you were magnanamous enough to tell them, but now you're saying you won't because you think it's dumb? If you're so goddamn strong, why can't you deal with seeing an occassional warning that would be a damn sight more useful than most? Why are you completely invested against something that doesn't affect you anymore than that freaking green 'this movie is rated PG-13 bar at the start of a film and would be appreciated by a lot more people than that useless arbitrary number?

 

Because it's 'dumb'? Well suck it up, snowflake.

[Chilloutman]

I think there is thin line between 'problematic' content becoming 'banned' content, I am sure someone can pull up some example from US Universities

[Gfted1]

The best intention of a trigger warning is to try to allow the PTSD sufferer to prepare themselves as best as possible for something that may "put them back" at the point of their trauma (which may be terrifying, but isn't necessary a state of 'abject terror').  As I mentioned I think the psychological science on the subject is divided over it from my own (admittedly limited) reading, but I'm not sure in and of itself is a dumb idea.  If a strict avoidance is helpful in recovery, then clearly it'd be the opposite of dumb to encourage.  If - as some of the literature I've read is true - that it may not help the long term recovery of a PTSD sufferer, than I'd argue its misguided rather than dumb.

How finely granulated should this consideration be? If even one person has an issue? 5? 10?

 

 

Yeah, none of those things are comparable. I'm just as confounded that that toothpicks have warnings about pointy ends as you are. If they were, I'm still not sure why this is the one where the line must be drawn.

 

But this isn't 'gosh, boiling water might be hot'. This is more like 'the ingredients should state there's peanuts because I have allergies that could cause serious damage or death'. Remove the 'you shouldn't microwave your cat' warnings all you want, knock yourself out. This is and will never be one of them.

 

Either way, I still don't get your problem. You just said you were magnanamous enough to tell them, but now you're saying you won't because you think it's dumb? If you're so goddamn strong, why can't you deal with seeing an occassional warning that would be a damn sight more useful than most? Why are you completely invested against something that doesn't affect you anymore than that freaking green 'this movie is rated PG-13 bar at the start of a film and would be appreciated by a lot more people than that useless arbitrary number?

 

Because it's 'dumb'? Well suck it up, snowflake.

Oh boy, I see we have completely departed from grownup conversation. Maybe go take a timeout and cool off? Probably better if we just agree to disagree.

 

And for the rest, please, for the love of your god, DO NOT go watch the Punisher trailer I posted in the other thread. Don't need people evacuating their bowels due to fictional depictions of blood, face punching, gun shooting, and knife...knifing.

[HoonDing]

im for banning everything u like

[Amentep]

 

The best intention of a trigger warning is to try to allow the PTSD sufferer to prepare themselves as best as possible for something that may "put them back" at the point of their trauma (which may be terrifying, but isn't necessary a state of 'abject terror').  As I mentioned I think the psychological science on the subject is divided over it from my own (admittedly limited) reading, but I'm not sure in and of itself is a dumb idea.  If a strict avoidance is helpful in recovery, then clearly it'd be the opposite of dumb to encourage.  If - as some of the literature I've read is true - that it may not help the long term recovery of a PTSD sufferer, than I'd argue its misguided rather than dumb.

How finely granulated should this consideration be? If even one person has an issue? 5? 10?

 

I'm not sure volume matters, like all discretionary warnings it'll take on the broadest necessary function if its done in a faceless way; if talking about PTSD it'd probably be a warning about content that correlates to the most common sources of PTSD (rape, abuse, war).

 

I understand the argument that I think you're implying - unlike a peanut allergy which has a specific correlation between person an item - it might be impossible to trigger warning every possible source of PTSD without putting a trigger warning on life itself.  I imagine - and again that is if ultimately trigger warnings are proven useful - that there will be some broad standard eventually adopted.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I liked a recently ended show called the Strain. Before it started there would be "Caution, viewer discretions is advised" with information that it contained violence or sexual situations or whatever. Putting that of something similar on a play bill or in a book isn't a big deal and I highly doubt any warning will be more than that. Doesn't affect the programing and will probably be ignored for the most part.

Isn't "viewer discretion is advised" meaning that the viewer should check if anyone not supposed to see the movie (i.e. kids) can see it. What's that suppose to mean on a theatrical ticket?

It's the same concept. Movie theatres already do this and if you look at the movie rating you'll see why it got the rating it did. You could easily do this in a book or whatever to give a forewarning of any upsetting content.

[Malcador]

I think there is thin line between 'problematic' content becoming 'banned' content, I am sure someone can pull up some example from US Universities

Or more likely they would just not study it, which is pretty benign. Not as if Titus Andronicus is essential.

[Blarghagh]

I think there is thin line between 'problematic' content becoming 'banned' content, I am sure someone can pull up some example from US Universities

Can I be the annoying guy who thinks he wins the internet when he says the word fallacy? But I don't think that's at all likely. Warning labels generally come AFTER bans. Prohibition, Hayes Code. They couldn't get rid of Eminem so they slapped advisory stickers on. The exception is smoking pack warnings, but that's only because the government cashes in on killing you.

[Gfted1]

It's the same concept. Movie theatres already do this and if you look at the movie rating you'll see why it got the rating it did. You could easily do this in a book or whatever to give a forewarning of any upsetting content.

Arent movie rating specifically gated by age? See, at a certain age that we are consider adults (18 in the US) and thus able to view whatever we choose.

[redneckdevil]

I don't understand what's so bad about giving someone information they can make an informed decision about themselves.

i don't think it of itself is bad, i personally have a problem with it because it's part of a practice that sets a bar that people will strive to lower themselves or stop at and become that level and not learn that somethings shouldn't even have a bar or be a hundle that sets you back and you should just learn to accept and overcome.  i understand it can be a slippory slope, but its one that u look at each individually and have to figure out what practice as a whole makes us as a whole stronger or weaker? 

[Malcador]

 

It's the same concept. Movie theatres already do this and if you look at the movie rating you'll see why it got the rating it did. You could easily do this in a book or whatever to give a forewarning of any upsetting content.

Arent movie rating specifically gated by age? See, at a certain age that we are consider adults (18 in the US) and thus able to view whatever we choose.

The rating is useful beyond that. Also are other places you can find out the content, IMDB used to do that, for example.