Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:
If someone wants to recover from trauma at their own pace on their own terms what is the harm? Maybe I don't feel like reliving my trauma today, I already had a gak enough day as it is.

The inclusion of trigger warnings seem like a very silly reason to decide that "the left" has failed.

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

Also, you may not have seen it, but I said that I think trigger warnings are ultimately a minor issue. I do not wake up every day fuming about trigger warnings, nor did I ever say "the left has failed" because of them.

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
If someone wants to recover from trauma at their own pace on their own terms what is the harm? Maybe I don't feel like reliving my trauma today, I already had a gak enough day as it is.

The inclusion of trigger warnings seem like a very silly reason to decide that "the left" has failed.

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

So people struggling with mental health issues shouldn't go to school. That is totally moronic.

Trigger warnings should be evaluated on a case by case basis. They can misused like when Hofstra University put trigger warnings up for students attending the presidential debate events on campus that level of hyper sensitivity strikes me as unhealthy codddling. Putting disclaimers or warnings on graphic images and video like the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide is just giving people a polite fair warning of what's coming. I have friends who can't stand the sight of blood and they don't have any history of trauma it just freaks them out. I'm not squeamish but there's stuff my wife can deal with as a nurse that gives me the heebie jeebies.

In terms of school environment I think materials should have proper labels/disclaimers/descriptions and professors should provide accurate course descriptions. A student should know what a course entails when they sign up for it and deal with all the required material necessary to pass the class but nobody needs to be taken unawares by what they are exposed to.

Phone about dead by the way. Despite the acrimony, I'm finding this conversation intriguing, and if I come to a full stop, that's why.

 jasper76 wrote:
If you are an individual who is so traumatized by something that happened to you, perhaps you should seek professional therapy before entering a challenging environment like college until you are better able to handle challenging material.

That makes sense for someone who isn't currently enrolled in college... but what about someone who has something happen while they are in their course scheduling?

 Spinner wrote:
If we called it a 'not making you an unwitting participant in dooming someone's soul to walk the earth for eternity' warning instead of a trigger warning, would you feel better about it? That seems to be the gist of what Hats was getting at with the religious beliefs summary.

Meanwhile someone get Star Fleet Command on the line. Riker needs to stop babying the crew of the Enterprise with this constant "brace for impact" trigger warning nonsense. If someone is waking down the hall and gets thrown into the next bulkhead like swiss cheese, obviously they just weren't prepared for the dangers on interstellar travel.

 jasper76 wrote:
I never once said their problems are not real problems. Now you are putting words in my mouth, and being disingenuous.

It may not be what you said, but it sure as hell sounds like you don't take their problem seriously. I mean, I really, really don't understand what you consider they should be doing. Once they realize they have PTSD, they should stop everything at once, not see any movie, not read any book, not go on the internet, send all their time on some rehabilitation therapy and not stop until they are completely fine, and only then start watching movies again?
(Though, to answer your question, they definitely shouldn't join the military, so there is no need for trigger warning on military training stuff.)

Even in general, there are tons of stuff that gives us hint about the content of books, movies and stuff. For instance, the good old Rated M for Mature stuff. Why complain about trigger warning specifically? And what with the “real life” talk too? Life doesn't come with trigger warning? Life doesn't come with fairness, justice, and a whole load of good stuff that we try to add to it as much as we can, and not being perfectly successful in this is no reason not to try.

[edit]To expand on this “taking their problem seriously”, here is what my reasoning when I hear of trigger warning is: “Those people with PTSD have suffered a lot, it's really a good thing to try to prevent them from suffering more, so trigger warning are great”. Here is yours, apparently “This people with trigger warning are being condescended/babied to, this is bad.”. I am quite sure that if they did feel condescended to, they would be perfectly able to say so themselves…

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So people struggling with mental health issues shouldn't go to school. That is totally moronic.

OK, I'm willing to give an inch here and say perhaps they should refrain from studying subjects and taking courses that contain potentially offensive material. If they are so traumatized that they can't handle a certain subject, its probably not healthy for them to expose themselves to it in any major way until they are ready to do so.

If we are talking about extremely traumatized people, my first piece of advice will always be to deal with your trauma with a health professional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I never once said their problems are not real problems. Now you are putting words in my mouth, and being disingenuous.

It may not be what you said, but it sure as hell sounds like you don't take their problem seriously. I mean, I really, really don't understand what you consider they should be doing. Once they realize they have PTSD, they should stop everything at once, not see any movie, not read any book, not go on the internet, send all their time on some rehabilitation therapy and not stop until they are completely fine, and only then start watching movies again?
(Though, to answer your question, they definitely shouldn't join the military, so there is no need for trigger warning on military training stuff.)

Even in general, there are tons of stuff that gives us hint about the content of books, movies and stuff. For instance, the good old Rated M for Mature stuff. Why complain about trigger warning specifically? And what with the “real life” talk too? Life doesn't come with trigger warning? Life doesn't come with fairness, justice, and a whole load of good stuff that we try to add to it as much as we can, and not being perfectly successful in this is no reason not to try.

See my comment directly above.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
If we called it a 'not making you an unwitting participant in dooming someone's soul to walk the earth for eternity' warning instead of a trigger warning, would you feel better about it? That seems to be the gist of what Hats was getting at with the religious beliefs summary.

Meanwhile someone get Star Fleet Command on the line. Riker needs to stop babying the crew of the Enterprise with this constant "brace for impact" trigger warning nonsense. If someone is waking down the hall and gets thrown into the next bulkhead like swiss cheese, obviously they just weren't prepared for the dangers on interstellar travel.

Did Riker get a trigger warning about the tiny chairs? Star fleet has to weed out the unworthy somehow.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Trigger warnings should be evaluated on a case by case basis. They can misused like when Hofstra University put trigger warnings up for students attending the presidential debate events on campus that level of hyper sensitivity strikes me as unhealthy codddling. Putting disclaimers or warnings on graphic images and video like the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide is just giving people a polite fair warning of what's coming. I have friends who can't stand the sight of blood and they don't have any history of trauma it just freaks them out. I'm not squeamish but there's stuff my wife can deal with as a nurse that gives me the heebie jeebies.

In terms of school environment I think materials should have proper labels/disclaimers/descriptions and professors should provide accurate course descriptions. A student should know what a course entails when they sign up for it and deal with all the required material necessary to pass the class but nobody needs to be taken unawares by what they are exposed to.

I think this sums it up sufficiently.

I find nearly every syllabus I've ever received usually contains a warning if graphic content is involved. We got a decent warning before reading At the Dark End of the Street (which isn't even graphic it'll just rip out your soul and stomp on it with words alone), and my Holocaust class included a nice "this class will show graphic images and films" warning when you registered. Most usually have some section along the lines of "please tell me if you have any issues you think I should be aware of" because we can treat each other with respect and decency without stooping to this 1950s bs about how kids today are too soft.

 jasper76 wrote:

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

So.... blame the victim. Gotcha

 jasper76 wrote:
OK, I'm willing to give an inch here and say perhaps they should refrain from studying subjects and taking courses that contain potentially offensive material. If they are so traumatized that they can't handle a certain subject, its probably not healthy for them to expose themselves to it in any major way until they are ready to do so.

Yeah, I agree. We should get the teacher to show clearly which courses could contain potentially offensive materials. We should identify those courses with a big “potentially offensive material warning” sign. That would be way better than a big “trigger warning” sign, yet somehow still the exact same thing .
(Also, edited my previous message)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

So.... blame the victim. Gotcha

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. What are you talking about?

Really, jasper76, it seems that to you the drawback of potentially being maybe condescending to people that never complain about it is way worse than the advantage of avoiding to someone the great anguish that comes with a PTSD fit. I think this is the reason why I felt you didn't take their problem seriously. That is how you seem to balance things. On one hand, the potential “babying”, on the other hand, the traumatic memories resurfacing, and the “babying” seems to weight more in your opinion. I just can't make any sense out of that except that the PTSD is not considered anything serious…

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If you are an individual who is so traumatized by something that happened to you, perhaps you should seek professional therapy before entering a challenging environment like college until you are better able to handle challenging material.

That makes sense for someone who isn't currently enrolled in college... but what about someone who has something happen while they are in their course scheduling?

This is a fair point. I think a college should bend over backwards to accommodate a readjustment to a students schedule if they've experienced major trauma and are in the midst of a course that presents potentially upsetting material.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Really, jasper76, it seems that to you the drawback of potentially being maybe condescending to people that never complain about it is way worse than the advantage of avoiding to someone the great anguish that comes with a PTSD fit. I think this is the reason why I felt you didn't take their problem seriously. That is how you seem to balance things. On one hand, the potential “babying”, on the other hand, the traumatic memories resurfacing, and the “babying” seems to weight more in your opinion. I just can't make any sense out of that except that the PTSD is not considered anything serious…

Well, then you are reading more into my posts than what I am writing.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

So.... blame the victim. Gotcha

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. What are you talking about?

I left the relevant bit of quote up there... you say "if you're not ready to deal with stuff, dont put yourself in that environment"

That is quite literally blaming the victim. It looks, and reads exactly the same to me as someone saying, "if you don't want to get raped dont wear that outfit"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

So.... blame the victim. Gotcha

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. What are you talking about?

I left the relevant bit of quote up there... you say "if you're not ready to deal with stuff, dont put yourself in that environment"

That is quite literally blaming the victim. It looks, and reads exactly the same to me as someone saying, "if you don't want to get raped dont wear that outfit"

I don't follow your logic. In your analogy, the professor must be the one responsible for the traumatizing event. If thats the case, the professor should be investigated if an alleged crime was committed.

You are also equating "rape" with "exposure to potentially upsetting material", which quite frankly is an insult to rape victims.

It's more like saying "if you aren't prepared to handle a bullet ridden ten year old the moment you step out your door, then just stay inside" which is pretty fethed. Who the feth leaves their bed in the morning and thinks "I'd better mentally prepare myself to find my daughter hanging from the rafters"?

Some gak is just fethed up, and no amount of preparation will make it less fethed but we can at least sit down and be honest in our Criminal Pathology class and agree "We're going to talk about Jeffry Dahlmer and some of this stuff is disturbing so get ready."

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

So.... blame the victim. Gotcha

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. What are you talking about?

I left the relevant bit of quote up there... you say "if you're not ready to deal with stuff, dont put yourself in that environment"

That is quite literally blaming the victim. It looks, and reads exactly the same to me as someone saying, "if you don't want to get raped dont wear that outfit"

If you're not ready to get drugged and raped then you shouldn't be going to nightclubs where there is a possibility of being drugged and raped.

/sarcasm

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

No problem with that at all. If you're not ready to deal with potentially upsetting issues, simply do not place yourself in an environment where potentially upsetting issues are likely to come up, like a college classroom.

So.... blame the victim. Gotcha

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. What are you talking about?

I left the relevant bit of quote up there... you say "if you're not ready to deal with stuff, dont put yourself in that environment"

That is quite literally blaming the victim. It looks, and reads exactly the same to me as someone saying, "if you don't want to get raped dont wear that outfit"

If you're not ready to get drugged and raped then you shouldn't be going to nightclubs where there is a possibility of being drugged and raped.

/sarcasm

And here we are comparing "exposure to potentially upsetting material" to being drugged first, then raped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's more like saying "if you aren't prepared to handle a bullet ridden ten year old the moment you step out your door, then just stay inside" which is pretty fethed. Who the feth leaves their bed in the morning and thinks "I'd better mentally prepare myself to find my daughter hanging from the rafters"?

Some gak is just fethed up, and no amount of preparation will make it less fethed but we can at least sit down and be honest in our Criminal Pathology class and agree "We're going to talk about Jeffry Dahlmer and some of this stuff is disturbing so get ready."

And here we are comparing "exposure to potentially upsetting material" to torture and murder of one's daughter.

Off the rails.

I never got the "new" issue with "Trigger Warnings." We have had them in media in the USA for decades. I remember in the 80s and 90s when they would warn you if it was going to be a "very special episode." Or they would say "viewer's discretion is advised."

Heck, the MPAA is a whole organization dedicated to trigger warnings. You can ignore it if you want, but they can be useful for people to know what they are getting into.

 AdeptSister wrote:
I never got the "new" issue with "Trigger Warnings." We have had them in media in the USA for decades. I remember in the 80s and 90s when they would warn you if it was going to be a "very special episode." Or they would say "viewer's discretion is advised."

Heck, the MPAA is a whole organization dedicated to trigger warnings. You can ignore it if you want, but they can be useful for people to know what they are getting into.

It's funny because those "parental advisory" and content regulation stuff started with the people who now complain about "trigger warnings."

 LordofHats wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
I never got the "new" issue with "Trigger Warnings." We have had them in media in the USA for decades. I remember in the 80s and 90s when they would warn you if it was going to be a "very special episode." Or they would say "viewer's discretion is advised."

Heck, the MPAA is a whole organization dedicated to trigger warnings. You can ignore it if you want, but they can be useful for people to know what they are getting into.

It's funny because those "parental advisory" and content regulation stuff started with the people who now complain about "trigger warnings."

It's participation trophies all over again.

 jasper76 wrote:


And here we are comparing "exposure to potentially upsetting material" to torture and murder of one's daughter.

Off the rails.

Now you're just being obtuse.

You predicate your position on not babying people so they can "function in the real world", but who in the real world goes out and is prepared to find a ditch full of human bodies burned to a crisp with napalm? Who wakes up in the morning and is just prepared to deal with the real life possibility of something as simple as seeing a man get torn in two?

You've built a fantasy where all human beings should somehow be stone faced stoics or they're just too weak, and a teacher warning students that an image might be disturbing is going to make them unable to cope when they walk in on a dead woman in their bathtub the next day. There are cops, soldiers, and doctors with decades experience in human suffering and depravity who cannot cope with some of the gak they see, and they go in with ideas about what they're going to find. Telling someone "content may be disturbing" is just treating someone like an infant.

So yes. We are off the rails, because holy gak in a world where PTSD is no longer called "cowardice" we're having a debate about how people need to be steeled at all moments to stumble into seeing something horrible and if they freak well they were just babied too much.

I wont keep on about trigger warnings. I'm well beyond my college years, have no kids and no plans for any, so ultimately I'm just as happy to let you and your professors handle modern schooling with no further input from me.

Just know that if you ever come work with or for me, there will be no trigger warnings, and we have to deal with potentially upsetting stuff on the daily and sometimes hourly.

And I'm also willing to admit that my distaste for trigger warnings is likely heavily influenced by the harsh realities I deal with as part of my chosen occupation.

 LordofHats wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
I never got the "new" issue with "Trigger Warnings." We have had them in media in the USA for decades. I remember in the 80s and 90s when they would warn you if it was going to be a "very special episode." Or they would say "viewer's discretion is advised."

Heck, the MPAA is a whole organization dedicated to trigger warnings. You can ignore it if you want, but they can be useful for people to know what they are getting into.

It's funny because those "parental advisory" and content regulation stuff started with the people who now complain about "trigger warnings."

Yet another bit of right-wing irony.

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't follow your logic. In your analogy, the professor must be the one responsible for the traumatizing event. If thats the case, the professor should be investigated if an alleged crime was committed.

You are also equating "rape" with "exposure to potentially upsetting material", which quite frankly is an insult to rape victims.

That is not at all what I said... Perhaps this analogy will be better:

Most of y'all know I was a soldier.... Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that I was on patrol in Iraq, and my unit discovers a house where dozens of Iraqis have been viciously murdered. The sight of all those bodies is quite traumatic for me and my squad-mates to where many of us seek professional help. Now that I'm out, and going to college, what you seem to be saying is that I should probably take zero history classes, especially US history classes, because if I'm not prepared for seeing pictures of say, Wounded Knee, I should just not sign up for any class where it may be discussed.

THAT is what I mean by blame the victim.

In my time in Germany, I noticed that schools had largely divorced themselves from sport activities... Playing on the varsity X team at school isn't the path to the professional game for most european youngsters.

European futbol clubs have their own academies like how MLB teams have the minor leagues so in Europe the university system isn't also a feeder system for professional sports. That odd marriage is unique to US higher ed, I believe.

In Germany you get basic physical education in school (I think think that's how it called in english) and people who end up as professional athletes usually are member of sports club (or academy that feeds directly into the pro team) in their free time and go pro if they excel there. If you want a career in football then waiting until you are out of college (early twenties) is like wasting a third of your possible career. If they don't get a contract they have their education to fall back on and can continue with college or an apprenticeship. We also usually don't have school lunch as school ends earlier than in the US/UK. You get one or two major breaks (about 20 to 30 minutes) between lessons but at about 1pm they kick you out so you get lunch at home.

He does make a lot of sense:

Spoiler:

How many over-generalising cliches can one put in one video? For a "free thinker" he's quite adept at repeating the same hyperbolic lamentation one hears about the left all the time (and the video doesn't contain much evidence of him actually thinking). He only needs to earnestly use "virtue signalling" for somebody showing a bit more empathy than him and mention the "fascist left" to complete his bingo card. And for the perfect finish he could complain about people comparing the alt-right to Nazis while somehow managing to use the term feminazi.

jasper76 wrote:OK, "underdeveloped" was a bad choice of words. I'd recommend investigating cognitive behavior therapy, which from what I've read is the most effective therapy for traumatized individuals, and deals with controlled exposure to offensive stimuli and strategies to deal with the emotions they stir up. If someone is so traumatized that things challenging material they experience in a classroom would be extremely upsetting, I'd recommend investigating this type of therapy for them, as well.

You literary made an argument for trigger warnings. First, cognitive behaviour therapy is done by a professional (and not a random person or professor) and having them would be beneficial to people who have problems so they can work through that with their therapist (without hindering anyone else) and second, "deals with controlled exposure to offensive stimuli and strategies to deal with the emotions they stir up" means that you don't just throw the triggering material at them. Regarding the whole censorship/trigger warnings bs you might want to read these posts:
http://www.jimchines.com/2016/04/trigger-warnings-are-censorship/
http://www.jimchines.com/2016/04/trigger-warnings-as-an-impediment-to-healing-and-mental-health/
http://www.jimchines.com/2016/04/when-trigger-warnings-attack/

LordofHats wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
If we called it a 'not making you an unwitting participant in dooming someone's soul to walk the earth for eternity' warning instead of a trigger warning, would you feel better about it? That seems to be the gist of what Hats was getting at with the religious beliefs summary.

Meanwhile someone get Star Fleet Command on the line. Riker needs to stop babying the crew of the Enterprise with this constant "brace for impact" trigger warning nonsense. If someone is waking down the hall and gets thrown into the next bulkhead like swiss cheese, obviously they just weren't prepared for the dangers on interstellar travel.

Hey, how about a spoiler warning in regard to what Riker does, not everybody has seen the show. Or should these be avoided too because they warn the reader about sensitive content that might affect them and they just need to be exposed to in and get over it?

I can't imagine anyone would want to work with someone who has that attitude.

Mario wrote:
Hey, how about a spoiler warning in regard to what Riker does, not everybody has seen the show. Or should these be avoided too because they warn the reader about sensitive content that might affect them and they just need to be exposed to in and get over it?

Good point.

Okay people no more spoiler tags! If someone isn't prepared to be told Snape kills Dumbledore* then they should have just read the books faster! I don't care if you don't know know Vader is Lukes father I'm going to tell you anyway because know the plot twist at the end of The Sixth Sense might ruin the film for you but I don't care!