Laurens
New Member
I admit instinctively I feel that they are pointless, but that is because I am fortunate enough not to live with PTSD. My gut tells me people should be allowed to speak freely without qualifying everything they say to be completely politically correct. However having thought about it my position is this:
Trigger warnings are an important acknowledgement of a marginalized group in society: those who suffer with mental health problems. The practise of stating specifically what you are about to talk about seems possibly a bit of an issue because simply saying the words for some might cause them anxiety. The aim however is a good one, to raise awareness and to take a heavily marginalized group and acknowledge them.
Its tricky because if you have an acute phobia of sausages, my simply saying the word might cause you to feel unsettled. So if I were to say "Trigger warning: I'm going to talk about sausages" you'd be triggered into thinking about it, which seems to defeat the object. I do however support the notion of acknowledging the content of what you are about to say within reason.
Something like:
"What I am about to talk about will be distressing for some. I sincerely apologise in advance if any of what I say causes distress. If you are not feeling like reading something potentially distressing I advise you to skip ahead to..."
Even if this were not to safeguard anyone, it will at least make readers aware that some people are sensitive to certain issues, and that it is a good thing to consider that when speaking.
It is certainly not about protecting anyone from hearing offensive stuff by accident. Obviously we need some kind of standard of what kinds of things would require a qualifying preamble because otherwise anything we might say might cause problems. I would say that it has to plausibly relate to a traumatic experience, not accounting for less obvious suggestions (such as sausages). Essentially accommodating for the fact that people who suffer with PTSD can be triggered by descriptions of certain events.
I think the gut dismissal that a lot of people have comes from a lack of awareness. Words don't trigger memories of traumatic experiences for us and we find it hard to understand and relate to how hard it is for people to live with trauma.
I'm not sure that specific trigger warnings are the way forward, but I do think it should be considered a general rule of politeness to warn strangers that something you are about to say might distress them. Trigger warnings essentially failed because they are too easy to mock and appear disingenuous to some, no one can really make fun of people being measured and considerate in their speech. Maybe that is a direction we could take?
Anyway I'm kind of rambling. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Trigger warnings are an important acknowledgement of a marginalized group in society: those who suffer with mental health problems. The practise of stating specifically what you are about to talk about seems possibly a bit of an issue because simply saying the words for some might cause them anxiety. The aim however is a good one, to raise awareness and to take a heavily marginalized group and acknowledge them.
Its tricky because if you have an acute phobia of sausages, my simply saying the word might cause you to feel unsettled. So if I were to say "Trigger warning: I'm going to talk about sausages" you'd be triggered into thinking about it, which seems to defeat the object. I do however support the notion of acknowledging the content of what you are about to say within reason.
Something like:
"What I am about to talk about will be distressing for some. I sincerely apologise in advance if any of what I say causes distress. If you are not feeling like reading something potentially distressing I advise you to skip ahead to..."
Even if this were not to safeguard anyone, it will at least make readers aware that some people are sensitive to certain issues, and that it is a good thing to consider that when speaking.
It is certainly not about protecting anyone from hearing offensive stuff by accident. Obviously we need some kind of standard of what kinds of things would require a qualifying preamble because otherwise anything we might say might cause problems. I would say that it has to plausibly relate to a traumatic experience, not accounting for less obvious suggestions (such as sausages). Essentially accommodating for the fact that people who suffer with PTSD can be triggered by descriptions of certain events.
I think the gut dismissal that a lot of people have comes from a lack of awareness. Words don't trigger memories of traumatic experiences for us and we find it hard to understand and relate to how hard it is for people to live with trauma.
I'm not sure that specific trigger warnings are the way forward, but I do think it should be considered a general rule of politeness to warn strangers that something you are about to say might distress them. Trigger warnings essentially failed because they are too easy to mock and appear disingenuous to some, no one can really make fun of people being measured and considerate in their speech. Maybe that is a direction we could take?
Anyway I'm kind of rambling. What are your thoughts on the issue?