Political Ocean's 11

[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.

[Hurlshort]

 

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.

 

 

They have a little box with all of the reasons why the movies is rated at that age.

[Blarghagh]

 

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.

I thought we left it when you compared PTSD warnings to being afraid of the bogeyman. But fair enough, if you can't deal with some pertinent consumer information being made available where it doesn't even affect you at all, then you can't. I'll accept your mental limitations.

 

Even if you won't for others.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

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.

They have a little box with all of the reasons why the movies is rated at that age.

To be fair, it's entirely arbitrary. Conjuring was rated R for 'oppressive atmosphere'. I'd trade it for more useful trigger warnings in a heartbeat.

[Gfted1]

 

"Waa, youre a poopy head for having different opinions on matters." There, there.

 

Back to movie ratings. Why do you suppose there are ages related to the ratings? Because we assume that as people age, they become more able to handle the slings and arrows of fictional stories or recreations.

 

Rated G: General Audiences – all ages admitted. Rated PG: Parental Guidance Suggested – some material may not be suitable for children. Rated PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned – some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Rated R: Restricted – under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

G = No cursing

PG = No nudity

R = No penetration

 

Not: "Hey, someone you know got crapped on and this movie shows someone getting crapped on, so beware.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Look at it on the bright side. If universities keep churning out legions milk blooded lilting pansies then in a few more years we'll going to take this whole f-----g show over and run this place!

Who is we in this context?

Well, I was really attempting to be humorous by ripping off a line from the original Planet of the Apes. But to answer your question the "we" would be the people who can read f-----g play without feeling so traumatized they need to see a f-----g therapist afterwards.

Well some people that were victims of attacks like in the play might have some reason to be upset. There is a warning in the notes, how is that skin off your nose?

 

 

c'mon, what percentage of people these days are personally exposed to rape or murder? 0,01%?

 

In South Africa they say we have a "rape culture "

 

http://www.destinyconnect.com/2017/07/11/rape-culture-south-africa/

 

I dont like the term "rape culture " because it applies rape is almost acceptable in South Africa, its not. Its a blight and scourge on our society and everyone I know is vociferously opposed to it and its often discussed and harshly criticized...but it is one of several societal problems we grapple with on an almost daily basis

 

I dont know  a single person who doesn't know at least one women who hasn't been raped or a victim of sexual violence so your 0.0.1% numbers are horribly inaccurate 

 

Statistically we probably have about 200 reported rapes a day, our population is 56 million so thats quite high 

 

http://rapecrisis.org.za/rape-in-south-africa/

 

And I can share one more thing, as a man its one of the worst experiences and utterly emasculating when you have any lady in your life who is a  victim of rape because all the words of support and comfort you think you will say to help them suddenly seem irrelevant compared to there real trauma and emotional state 

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, you made those guidelines up. In reality, the ratings will cite any reason they wish. A movie in which the C-word is uttered is rated R for sexual abuse and so is one that features graphic rape as long as it doesn't show the dreaded peen. The ratings are a pointless abomination. The Matrix is R and The Ring is PG-13.

[Malcador]

 

"Waa, youre a poopy head for having different opinions on matters." There, there.

 

 

Kind of rich coming from you, heh.

[injurai]

Movie/game ratings are essentially trigger warnings by a different name. I think to include content warnings is perfectly fine, the difference is that in once instance the responsibility is on the user to approve material for themselves or for those they are guardian to. With trigger warnings, these are things that are not required, but failure to give one is often met with extreme social hostility and tantrums. Solution? Put up content warnings, don't call them trigger warnings. Most of the controversy around them is people "acting triggered" when they aren't really experiencing anything close to a panic episode. When it comes to artistic mediums, I'd expect someone to inform themselves about what they are seeing, and if something is unpleasant to excuse themselves.

 

The most incendiary behavior around trigger warnings is more in the University scene, where there is required course content. Because regardless to whether there are warnings or not, people object wholesale. You have people refusing to deal with the very content of their field. Instead of advocating for their own personal considerations they'll opt instead of publicly demonize a professor and interrupt a whole class. This is the whole issue that I'm more familiar with.

[Blarghagh]

Movie/game ratings are essentially trigger warnings by a different name. I think to include content warnings is perfectly fine, the difference is that in once instance the responsibility is on the user to approve material for themselves or for those they are guardian to. With trigger warnings, these are things that are not required, but failure to give one is often met with extreme social hostility and tantrums. Solution? Put up content warnings, don't call them trigger warnings. Most of the controversy around them is people "acting triggered" when they aren't really experiencing anything close to a panic episode. When it comes to artistic mediums, I'd expect someone to inform themselves about what they are seeing, and if something is unpleasant to excuse themselves.

 

The most incendiary behavior around trigger warnings is more in the University scene, where there is required course content. Because regardless to whether there are warnings or not, people object wholesale. You have people refusing to deal with the very content of their field. Instead of advocating for their own personal considerations they'll opt instead of publicly demonize a professor and interrupt a whole class. This is the whole issue that I'm more familiar with.

So you're saying the problem is that twitter activists and gender studies feminists poisoned people against 'trigger warnings'? Even I give people more credit than that.