Talk:Trigger warning/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 29 November 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Source Conflict

The statement, "Novels, textbooks, and entire courses of study are increasingly being given "trigger warnings" despite the fact that, to date, the use of such is not only unsupported by science, but is actually something experts tend to recommend against" is supported by this reference.[1] What the source actually says under the heading, "CONFRONTING TRIGGERS, NOT AVOIDING THEM, IS THE BEST WAY TO OVERCOME PTSD" is, "Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life. By practicing confronting these triggers, clients learn that fear subsides, enabling them to reclaim their lives and conquer PTSD." Allowing people to confront triggers in a deliberate manner -- which is what the source article is actually recommending -- is entirely consistent with the use of trigger warnings, not contraindicated by it.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. It says to confront trigger not trigger warnings . Trigger warnings are used to deter people who might have certain triggers from daring to expose themselves to such material. Experts in related fields recommend against trigger warnings. And it's not just experts in the psychological fields, either, but also those in higher-education, who are pushing back against what is honestly a foolish, embarrassing trend that may very well be hindering the recovery of people with PTSD. Parogar (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that with Ikanreed that most PTSD triggers are fairly specific and that the use of "trigger warning" is probably overbroad. However, your source doesn't support your claim. Confronting triggers in a controlled, deliberate manner is what that source recommends. If the text for which the "trigger warning" applies is an actual trigger (which I agree is probably unlikely in most cases) then the warning allows someone to choose when / how to confront it, which is consistent with the recommendation in your own source.

Also, I don't know what you mean by, "It says to confront trigger not trigger warnings".--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I updated that section in a manner that I think is reasonable. You already had the "unsupported by science" above (though I took out "modern", as I suspect it isn't supported by classical science either) so thought it was unnecessary here.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood Parogar (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, having more carefully read through the edit you made, I do have an issue with it. You're using the words "unclear" wrongfully. It's not "unclear." If we call it "unclear" then we must call all woo and anything that lacks scientific support/evidence as "unclear." To this end, creationism is "unclear." As of right now, there are no peer-reviewed research papers (at least that I could find) that support or lead even a slight consensus to there being merit in trigger warnings, which is why I can't in good faith leave that edit. Without there being evidence to support it, how can we call it "unclear?" Parogar (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We agree that "triggers" exist. The expert opinion seems to be that triggers should be confronted as part of a therapeutic program. "Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life." Avoiding encountering triggers outside of this structured approach is an expected part of the program. A trigger warning for a valid trigger allows someone to confront the particular trigger or not as appropriate for their progress.

Choosing when to encounter a trigger is valid and consistent with the expert opinion on PTSD treatment. Encountering triggers randomly as a means of overcoming PTSD is not (so your use of "contrarily" is unsound). It is unclear whether "trigger warnings" are a valid part of such an approach and the specific use of this mechanism appears to be untested, though allowing people to control when they encounter triggers is perfectly consistent with the research. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is this research? Wikipedia states the following: "The efficacy of 'trigger warnings' has not been methodically addressed by scientific study, however in an interview about Trigger Warnings for the Daily Telegraph[11] Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research[11] said that "The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That’s not good" Parogar (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, something in science is unclear when there is evidence both for and against it. If there is no evidence either way, it's not unclear. It's basically on par with every other belief that can't be proven, including the existence of God or whether or not heaven exists. Parogar (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Feminist as snarl word

Right there in the first sentence "...which aims to reduce PTSD-related trauma that a few feminists believe will be "activated"..." - Come on, its use is far wider than that and, as such, this is just there as a piece of anti-feminist propaganda. Hence my change. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I was NOT trying to use it as a snarl word. I was just being lazy if we're being honest. I think somewhere in the article I need to mention how it originated on feminist blogs. But I didn't feel like going into that right from the outset as I wanted to get all the other stuff down first. It's why I change "some" to "few." Parogar (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not attacking privilege

I just want to say this in advance before someone assumes I have. This is why I have made substantial edits to remove things I felt that, in hindsight, were too over the top. The reason being is that it is not the concept of privilege I am mocking, but the trend of young people who don't actually understand what privilege is, competing with one another (invariably trigger warnings will be brought up).

It is almost frighteningly common to see one person belonging to one minority group fighting with another over which of the two has privilege. At any rate, I've edited the article to clarify that this is not an attack on privilege or feminism Parogar (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify (so there is absolutely no ambiguity of why I mentioned privilege, I have changed the article so that it reads as follows:

"It is estimated that, unless one has at least seven different triggers, they are not a human being worthy of being allowed to share their opinions. Indeed, oftentimes having a trigger can make the difference in a dispute between two or more people accusing one another of having privilege, a critically misunderstood concept that well-meaning individuals misuse.

It is not uncommon to see members of entirely separate marginalized groups mistakenly believe that having trauma triggers plays a role in how privileged they are, as privilege is not based on how much bad shit has happened to you but on how you're treated by society when it does." Parogar (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The science is not unclear

There is very little science that has been done on trigger warnings. The only thing we have to go on is the research that avoiding things doesn't help. If there is no scientific data to support that trigger warnings are helpful in dealing with PTSD (which, according to Wikipedia, there isn't), then the science is not "unclear," it's "nonexistent."

In other words, if there is an EQUAL amount of scientific data to support the idea that trigger warnings are helpful as there is data to support the idea that God exists, then it's not "unclear," it's "unsupported." Parogar (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with "untested". What I think is unsound is the claim that trigger warnings are contraindicated by the evidence for PTSD. Look at wiki articles on | Prolonged Exposure Therapy : "The imaginal exposure typically occurs during the therapy session and consists of retelling the trauma to the therapist. For the in vivo exposure, the clinician works with the client to establish a fear and avoidance hierarchy and typically assigns exposures to these list items as homework progressively." While complete avoidance doesn't help, these (scientifically validated) therapeutic programs recommend progressive exposure. How can you do progressive exposure without some degree of avoidance?--SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, Parogar is essentially advocating immersion therapy here, which psychological science has left behind as traumatic(for those with phobias, a distinct "triggered" condition from PTSD). Exposure therapy is the current standard, and I'm not sure how science relates PTSD and phobias in terms of treatment paths. Probably not much at all, but literature review is probably called for before we start making specific claims. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Inherent Problems of Trigger Warnings

The thing about things that can trigger your PTSD is that often they are only tangentally related to your PTSD. The human mind is not an incredibly organized filing cabinet; your mind moves from thought to thought based on any number of related "indexes" such as smells, sounds, and other related memories.

Let's say you spent a few weeks being tortured with some "corrective therapy" of some sort. What sets you off may not be seeing any torture devices, it might just be hearing some Ludwig van. So to be "protected" you wouldn't need a warning every time a movie or play has a torture scene, you'd need a trigger warning for something specific only to you.CorruptUser (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

Whose idea was to let Parogar write this one?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki software. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I really tried to be as fair and pro-feminist as possible on this one. Yet you're still essentially making it seem like I'm a vandal. Parogar (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But the truth? Trigger warnings are fucking bullshit and we all know it. It's unscientific nonsense that only extremely oversensitive people or TERFs actually believe in. Usually as a justification for hating against people who are transgender. Parogar (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're reaching. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Trigger warnings are fucking bullshit and we all know it. It's unscientific nonsense that only extremely oversensitive people or TERFs actually believe in. Usually as a justification for hating against people who are transgender." I wish I could preserve this choice piece of idiocy in amber for future palaeontologists of stupidity to treasure. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not stupidity. I merely did not write out everything, because I assumed you would be able to fill in the blanks with regards to *why* TERFS are so adamant about using trigger warnings. Really, it's quite simple. You see, many trans women still have male genitalia yet they are still 100% women. TERFS try to argue that, because of sexual trauma, seeing a male penis in locker rooms or showers will "trigger" them. Parogar (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Trash and rewrite

It needs to be done. There's little worth rescuing from this mess. If I find time this week I'll do it myself. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. I love complete rewrites. When someone else does them. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

None here, either. It needs help from the sentence level on up. MarmotHead (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I object. The article is fine as is. You're irattionally basing your decision out of group think mentality founded on a personal dislike of me. This is clear from the way no one here seems to be able to justify their decision, as it is not one rooted in logic or reason. If you object to something, then let us discuss it. Otherwise, this is authoritarian behavior. (This is Paro on tablet)

Furthermore, I have a very large suspicion that another part of your desire to rewrite comes from disagreeing with the SPOv. Fact of the matter is that, while Ikanreed has provided some understandable annecodotes, he or she cannot use his or herself as a source. If your issue lies in the tone this article takes, then at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that your objections are grounded in emotion and not in anything scientific. I have given so many opportunities for people to prove that there is another side to this via accredited research. So instead of the personal attacks made against me on this talk page, let's see some fucking evidence and decent argumention as I am MORE than reasonable and willing to consider it.

I'm happy to have the article redone because, to be honest, it just doesn't read well. It does one or more of: 1) not covering enough territory; 2) not covering the existing territory in enough detail; and 3) not doing well at making a large cohesive point. The short version: however good/bad the idea, it's just not well executed. I read it and came away just as ignorant as before I read it. I tried to do something to improve it and I still felt the same: it needs major work. MarmotHead (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"A trigger warning is a short warning, usually at the top of an article, story, or discussion, which aims to reduce PTSD-related trauma that could possibly be activated by reading certain words or phrases or from recalling traumatic events." The lede is 100% inaccurate as it stands. The whole article seems to be written from the perspective that TWs are solely a PTSD thing, rather than a courtesy to readers of short-form news and opinion in a similar vein to the well-established 'scenes of a sexual nature' warnings for TV. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 23:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's an understandable assertion though, considering the term "trigger" does specifically refer to the idea of PTSD triggers. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least discuss changes like civilized adults before butchering an article?

Trigger Warning: Internet Arguments

I don't understand what these issue is here. If you'd like to delete entire sections of what I've written, I am more than reasonable. Let us discuss them first. This article falls quite well within RationalWiki's stated goals. And because it is divisive, many are objecting to it out of being "offended" or having their "feelings" hurt. Please remember that the talk pages to RationalWiki articles exist for a reason. Let's try to use them, shall we? Parogar (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That section wasn't funny at all. Marlow (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reason. Nothing is funny to the overly sensitive. If your objection is that the section offended you, then consider for a moment just how much criticism has offended a drastic number of people on RW. Once again, RW allows (and encourages) SPOV. If the best reason you have is that it's something you believe in (and now you're getting defensive), then that's a very, very poor reason to object. Parogar (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again: vandalizing the article while forgoing the talk page is in incredibly poor taste Parogar (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah, they justified it in the edit summary, and not obeying your personal arbitrary process to nuke something dumb isn't "vandalizing". They gave a reason to remove it(it's not funny), and you've given no reason to keep it. Stop edit warring over this, you're wrong. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Here's my justification. #1: SPOV (obviously). #2: It is a completely valid and justifiable form of criticism that perfectly aligns with the tone of the article. One of the biggest abuses of trigger warnings comes from the people using ridiculous labels like otherkin to claim being triggered at the most benign of things. http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/trigger-warning-insects.jpg Parogar (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, your viewpoints are subjective. One man's SPOV is another's Unfunny. And this article is not owned by you; others are free to edit as they see fit. --Castaigne (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least have some level of honesty? Despite trigger warnings being pseudo scientific bullshit, ALL OF WHICH gets mocked on RW, there are many of you who ACTUALLY believe in them, and because of this, you want to give it "special treatment" because it offends you. Parogar (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Better suggestion; rather than use the stupid example of Big Bertha, just use Malcolm McDowell from Clockwork Orange. He was triggered by Ludwig Van. In fact, I'll add it. CorruptUser (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a much better example, yes. Good call. --Castaigne (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC)You can see from my edit history on this page that I don't believe that. Don't make up motivations for me because I disagree with a particularly noxious part of the article. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Dial it back, pal. I'm not being hostile to you and I'm being perfectly honest. You want to give examples of obese otherkin whores, you go to A Voice For Men or Reddit and do that.

Now then. You say trigger warnings are pseudo-scientific bullshit; last I checked, trigger warnings are simply a concept that have been floated around the internet for the sake of courtesy. What, specifically, is the pseudo-scientific bullshit you are referring to? Has this become an issue of academia? --Castaigne (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Parogar, stop for one second and think. Is it possible that you misunderstand the issue here? Your credibility on this topic is not great. Hust a couple of months ago you were railing against feminism until you had a miraculous turn around spurred by the idea that vampire novelist Anne Rice is a feminist. The key here is that trigger warnings have very little to do with science and much more to do with being polite and inclusive. Are they over used to the point of silliness? Maybe sometimes, but that's outside of what we're interested in here at rationalwiki. Marlow (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But why is being a devout feminist even required to write anything on here? That's authoritarian to the max. I support what feminists are trying to achieve. But I don't support acting like a bitch and crying when something's offensive. RW has plenty of offensive humor. I laugh at all of it, even when it's on topics I don't agree with (the position RW takes). At some point people need to just grow thicker skin and laugh. Because you know what? A gigantic, hugely obese white woman in a fat scooter who thinks she's actually a half-Japanese, half-dragon is fucking hilarious, especially if she's eating McDonald's while demanding people call her Heather-chan. Parogar (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be a feminist to write about it here, but you do have to have an understanding of it that isn't paper thin. Your ignorant about these topics yet insist on writing and arguing about them. What the fuck does this woman you cooked up have to do with trigger warnings? It's a straw man (straw otherkin?) and it's identical to the kind of straw feminist caricatures you see in the manosphere. Marlow (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My #1 criticism about feminism and feminists is that they take themselves too seriously. I have lots of feminist icons, but they are the sort who ... well, here's a very short example which I honestly feel in just a few minutes does more to promote a positive image of feminism than an entire textbook written by an ultra-serious blogger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYtcaC8DEmc <-- That is, in my HUMBLEST opinion, the right way to reach people with feminism. There's a song in the movie "Singing in the Rain" that nails what is essentially a universal truth of life! Parogar (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if you think feminists are too serious. My only point was that your joke wasn't funny and indicated a lack of awareness about the actual issues at work here. Marlow (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So what? When RW tears into organized religion, you could easily say it's just as lacking in awareness. RW makes fun of so many things that originate on the right: and rightfully so, because conservatives are the most unintelligent people on the planet. Nevertheless, I don't see why we can't shred the left up a bit too. Conservatives are too easy of targets. Most of the time you don't even have to mock them, because the moment they open their mouths, they're already treating us to comedy gold. Parogar (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we have gotten to your fundamental misunderstanding. RW's goal is not to make fun of stupid things. It's to discuss and to a degree make fun of (or at least snark at) a particular set of stupid things specifically pseudoscience and authoritarianism. People stretching to the point of silliness in order to avoid offending each other might be stupid in your mind, but it isn't something that we're interested in breaking down here. Especially with dumb fat jokes. Marlow (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

1)

Stop with the this. Just use ONE extra colon every response.

2) Don't use straw arguments. CorruptUser (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well of course it sounds like something an MRA would say

Every fucking thing MUST be an MRA argument when something should happen to criticize a ridiculous element that JUST SO HAPPENS to originate from feminism. It couldn't just be that Trigger Warnings are absolutely fucking stupid. No, because that would require people to actually change their viewpoints along with the evidence provided. It's much easier to be authoritarians and make sure that nothing--not a single thing--can accidentally be offensive to a feminist. Parogar (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I just said above, though you should read the rest of what I wrote. This still stands: you want to give examples of obese otherkin whores, you go to A Voice For Men or Reddit and do that. Not here. SPOV does not involve making specific insults like that, no matter how much you dislike tumblrinas or whatever. --Castaigne (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. It's okay to laugh at stupid men. It's okay to laugh at stupid women. But it's not okay to laugh at either if they also happen to be feminist. No, then we must give them bonus brownie points and leave them completely unfazed. Look, I'm not an MRA. I despise MRAs. I think MRAs are over-privileged white men who likely frequent stormfront and support Gamergate. In fact, supporting Gamergate is probably required just to get in the door. Secondly, I couldn't possibly be an MRA: I'm Jewish. That kinda invalidates my whiteness in their eyes. Parogar (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Parogar do you read the shit you write or do you just type it and assume it reads like something coherent? I don't think you have a clue about the issues you're discussing here. Marlow (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't said a thing about feminism. Don't put words in my mouth, boy.

What I object to is making fun of fat people. I object to characterizing people who want trigger warnings as being otherkin tumblrinas, since that's not true. I object to examples that are about as funny as walking up to my wife and giving her a titty slap and ass grab while screaming "CLIMB MY BANG BUS!". You example was not funny or SPOV; it was crap and showed an obvious chip on your shoulder that is given by your previous edits.

I totally get your point, but I disagree with the point about the titty slap and the bang bus example. I don't even remotely see that as being sexist depending on the context and the relationship (not saying yours specifically, but I mean in general). Because there are a lot of couples who are like that and perfectly happy. I really don't think it's fair to make it seem like doing that exact thing is sexist. Grabbing a woman's tits can be a very evil thing in a lot of circumstances, but in others it's part of living fun and free, as long as it's consensual and both people just like to interact that way. Believe me, there are more than a few women out there who laugh at things like that. Once boundaries are established, that is. (I just found your post sort of condemning of that kind of playful sexual banter, I mean no offense) Parogar (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So, not a thing to do with feminism. Just a thing to do with your crudity and personal hate-ons. Now simmer down, son.

(Also, MRAism has very little to do with race. The Stormfront ones are the neo-reactionaries. THE MOAR YOU KNOW...)--Castaigne (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way, I'm really getting sick of being called an MRA every last time I do something someone doesn't like. I mean do I have to tattoo "Not an MRA" on my forehead in order for people to stop rudely accusing me of being one? The only person who can decide if I am or am not an MRA is my own self. And I'm not an MRA. Parogar (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Spend some time at We Hunted the Mammoth and you may get a sense of why people think you sound like an MRA.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

See what SpecialFFrog said. When you walk around sounding off like an MRA and using MRA language and terms, then I will regard you as an MRA. Just like if someone walks, talks, and acts like a Neo-Nazi, then I'll call them a Stormfronter. People do not get to decide what they get called. What they say and how they act determines that. --Castaigne (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Lot's of shit is "fucking stupid" but not a giant social ill that needs a take down. We'll discuss the available science in the article(which is practically nonexistent, not substantive and contrary), because we're rationalwiki. It's what we do. But unlike certain... other memes, it's really not hurting anyone, and doesn't need to be slammed like it is. It doesn't need some stupid stereotype originating from 13 year olds being 13 year olds as a supporting point. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and lots of things feminists say is hurtful. And again: this is NOT to hate on feminism. But honestly? It's bullshit when I see articles saying that trans women (who ARE! women) should not be allowed to use women's bathrooms because they'll get "triggered" by the sight of a penis. It's bullshit, and they deserve to be mocked for thinking and saying it. Parogar (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck does that have to do with trigger warnings? Marlow (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the whole concept of what gets to be a "trigger." Maybe there should be a separate article just on triggers then. Because most of my objections to trigger warnings are what are used as triggers. And I don't just mean the funny shit everyone already agrees with like tunafish or bats. I mean things like a penis. That is a trigger (or so TERFS claim) and a reason why it is not okay for women to use the women's restroom. And I think it's bullshit, and I refuse to accept it. Parogar (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This very article now says, "triggers are often unique to each individual and experience, deeply tied to specific sensory experiences". While I agree that the TERF arguments are wrong for a variety of reasons, you don't get to decide what are and are not valid triggers for someone with PTSD (which if you read your own sources for this article you would note has a higher incidence in sexual assault victims than it does in victims of most traumas). --SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an article on Trans-exclusionary radical feminism. If you think it is lacking feel free to enhance it. However, I don't see what that has to do with "trigger warnings" on media, unless you think public washrooms are "media". --SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I like the clockwork orange example

That's fine with me Parogar (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding fat people

Trigger Warning: Paragor Logic
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Several of you have an issue with my making fun of fat people. For the record, I am very much overweight. But that's beside the point. Why is it so bad to make fun of fat people? Especially the ones in the scooters? I think that this (respectfully) is why SOME feminists get a reputation of being anti-fun, anti-comedy, and too serious. Because nothing is okay anymore. Every joke has to be like this:
Q: "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
A: "Doesn't matter 'cause it's not about feminism."
I'm serious. And there have been so many times I've made a barely offensive joke on here, and someone will speak alien to me. "That's wrong because blah blah blah heteronormative blah blah cissexist blah blah Jane Austen blah blah the patriarchy blah blah ingrained, internalized misogyny blah blah cookie for being a decent human being."
Humor should have absolutely no boundaries whatsoever. It's what makes it great. Parogar (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I bet there's not even 1 rape joke on here. Parogar (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Me don't understand words" isn't really a very good argument for anything72.181.110.248 (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

How free speech works --SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you really just friend argument yourself? Trick (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

^^See? That right there. That is the problem with this movement. You have to have an arrogant, pretentious term for literally fucking everything. You can't even take a dump when you use feminist lingo. No, you don't poop. You "excrete excess privilege."

I mean, look at what you wrote. "Did you really just friend argument yourself?"

What am I supposed to say to that? "Oh, no! How could I have friend argumente myself! Why,God, why? How could I have done something as seriously fucked up as friend argument myself!"

Why must you take yourself this seriously? No one else outside of RW will. And that's not intended to be hurtful. Feminism needs to spread. And you're doing it wrong.

"Uh! Now he's mansplaining how to fight our war against oppression! A mere 'male' is trying to tell WOMEN how to fight for equality!"

You know what? How many years have women been oppressed for? Okay, and how many years have MEN been oppressed for?

Just saying. Parogar (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

“”You have to have an arrogant, pretentious term for literally fucking everything. You can't even take a dump when you use feminist lingo."

It's not a pretentious term or feminist lingo. It's the actual name for the fallacious argument you are using. That's part of RationalWiki; debunking and describing fallacious arguments. You should really have a look at the category.

“”I mean, look at what you wrote. "Did you really just friend argument yourself?"

Yes, you are expected to read the article and be familiar with the fallacious argument. After all, that's the exact type of argument that we attack here.

“”Why must you take yourself this seriously? No one else outside of RW will.

You are wrong. And very obviously young and untutored.

“”"Uh! Now he's mansplaining how to fight our war against oppression! A mere 'male' is trying to tell WOMEN how to fight for equality!"

I'm a bro, bro.And this has nothing to do with mansplaining or feminism; this has to do with you being crude and using rape jokes.

“”okay, and how many years have MEN been oppressed for?

We men have never been oppressed, at least not in American history. --Castaigne (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah there is; Virgin Mary never consented. From LoB: "You mean you were raped?!" "Well, at first..." CorruptUser (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Aw shucks guys, you're just not making enough rape jokes to be funny" :-/ ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Parogar, your lame joke bombs and all of a sudden you've uncovered this massive problem with humorlessness among feminists. Have some self awareness for fuck sake. Keep in mind that they're names for things like friend argument and tone troll because reactionary dunces are constantly using them, they're points refuted a thousand times "I'm not racist I've got a black friend" "I support your movement but you're doing it wrong by being all loud and rude, you need to make it more ineffectual." Marlow (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, there isn't a friggin' rape joke here. Rape jokes aren't fucking funny. Neither are racist jokes, neither are "offensive" jokes, offensive in this case meaning things that aren't even remotely accepted in general society as being funny. I personally do not find that shit funny. And I react to you exactly as I would react to someone pulling that shit out at my workplace. --Castaigne (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

They hypothetically can be funny. You know. If they're jokes. Most rape "jokes" tend to be of the "only funny because they used the word rape" stripe. I know several jokes that are actually funny that imply a non-consensual sex activity, but all do so in the context of an actual setup and punchline that together form an actual basis of humor. They aren't then, typically called "rape jokes". That term evokes Daniel Tosh's horrible shit. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons I personally don't find rape jokes funny is that they tend to make fun of the victim rather than the rapist, and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone capable of creatively telling such a joke. Withoutaname (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me...

...what's supposed to be so bad about trigger warnings? I wish there'd be a trigger warning on TV when they're about to show someone's dick or scrotum. (Yes, they actually do that on some of the main channels over here sometimes. Often for 'humorous' purposes.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Only one person has any objections, and it's mostly incoherent rambling. Personally, I think it's fine in moderation if you want trigger warnings, but keep it simple like "Rated TV-MA for Sexual Violence".CorruptUser (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm at least a little tuned into the internet at large. I think I could summarize the extant objections as "Some people use the word 'trigger' in attempt to dictate the language of others", which is both rare and ineffective at that task. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that there is a significant overlap between those who complain about "trigger warnings" and those who complain about "political correctness gone mad!" --SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I deem that a testable hypothesis. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No objections here on that front, though a suitable control group doesn't occur to me at present.--Madman (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

I don't see the issue of putting them there myself. Seems like less of an issue than the ~10 minutes of commercials in a 30 minute show, annoying repeated intros, giant animated ads on the bottom of the screen some networks run, 20 minutes of un-skippable trailers/ads on DVD's... People who complain about a quick second blurb need more important things in their lives. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hell, you could even make an adblock for trigger warnings, just like adblock for ads recovers many of those precious minutes. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

TV has used content warnings like "this news report contains disturbing images which some viewers may find upsetting" for decades. Trigger warnings aren't so different; they're just relating that kind of message specifically to trauma triggers rather than general viewer unease. Personally I would favour a general article about content warnings with a section on trigger warnings along with sections on other kinds of voluntary or mandatory content warning & issues around censorship & self-censorships etc. rather than treating trigger warnings as some kind of novelty that arose out of feminism in recent years with no parallels or precedents. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To the surprise of nobody, the Rodent has it just exactly perfect. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A move to content warnings would be nice, and could then cover stuff like the FCC. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My two cents/observations as someone who still pokes around Reddit: I think the issue these people have is largely for trigger warnings for what seem to be/people deem to be benign, too common/trivial, or off-the-wall. A quick flip-through of TumblrInAction's most upvoted posts regarding making fun of triggers show, for example, a request that an open pomegranite fruit should have a "gore" trigger warning, a list of triggers for an April Fools video including "phobias of motion, skin, nails, space, dogs, shaking, scopophobia, bare chests, heights, repetition, etc.", a request for trigger warnings on pictures of happy fathers/grandfathers, and a request for a trigger warning on a hamster named "Robin Thicke" because of Blurred Lines. It doesn't particularly help when veterans and victims of abuse pop up in the comments and say "Hey, I'm triggered by [Insert Trigger Here], but the thing is that I seek treatment for it rather than expect the world to kowtow to me!"

There's also a number of posts complaining about how the word "triggered" has become so trivialized in parlance (like this recently posted screencap). I'm pretty sure a large proportion of these people who don't like the term would have no qualms over something like an NSFW, violence, or abuse warning. (Side note: holy crap, what happened here? Did an edit war happen or something?) Noir LeSable (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, look forward to the day when the likes of Leda and the Swan, Hey Joe and Othello come complete with appropriate trigger warnings and in depth intersectionalist analysis of the protagonists' major malfunctions. For great social justice! Robledo (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Take off every ZIG!! No, seriously, these trigger warning remind me too much of the Tipper Stickers. Another moral panic and a guarantee of flame wars about feminism.--Arisboch (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding a study or two

This doesn't explicitly support/oppose trigger warnings, but does show that triggering happens. If it should be added, where should it be added? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is "that triggering happens" actually in question? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to rebut the few who question triggering (who, a quick Google shows, do exist). ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 23:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not quite a study, but helpful.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A section for safe spaces?

I'm gonna add something that would put in an explanation for what safe spaces are, since they tend to be tied pretty closely with trigger warnings. Let me know what you think. Jon91919 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. Have a go at it. It's possible, depending on what you add, that it may ignite a warm-to-heated discussion, but, you know, go for it! I think that's a related concept where the intention may be cool ("Let's just not get hostile as we talk."), but the practice sometimes comes out a bit distorted ("Don't EVEN disagree with me!") MarmotHead (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think about your edit. It's not bad, but it seems to have a very specific point of view. From what you write, it sounds as if these safe spaces are a way to flip the power dynamic. From what I see (I am NOT all-knowing), they sometimes just seem to suppress certain, admittedly obnoxious, viewpoints turning a possible conversation (unlikely, I know) into a monologue. My 2 cents. MarmotHead (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would say that these concepts are not related at all. A trigger warning is just a content warning. Your added section doesn't describe any link either. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding to that, I also fail to see how this page, or your edit, related to RW:MISSION... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It becomes missional with a more developed discussion of the ongoing controversy among academics -- even some of a liberal bent -- about the usefulness and appropriateness of such things. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Safe spaces are conceptually related to (especially the over-use of) trigger warnings. I am less than enthusiastic about either as they've come to be conceived and applied.---Mona- (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder, what the difference between a safe space and an echo chamber is (the latter being the former taken to far, perhaps?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Flip the narrative

(This probably isn't a coherent thought, bare with me) One other thing about safe spaces are safe spaces to be for one demographic to oppress another. Like I keep hearing people talking about games (or other media) being a safe male space or clubs for men to be men. I think if we travel down this rabbit hole we can properly spin off safe spaces into its own article. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference...

...between trigger warnings and the ratings for television shows, movies, music, video games etc? Isn't a comprehensive rating system (TV MA- Sexual Violence, Graphic Imagery) essentially the same as a trigger warning? CorruptUser (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So, wait, I think I got it. Parental Warnings and so forth are promoted by the Right Wing but hated by the Left because it's seen as meddling, and Trigger Warnings are promoted by the Left Wing but hated by the Right because it's seen as coddling, so even though they want virtually the exact same thing, they can't agree because everyone is an asshole. CorruptUser (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes? I think. But its all in the language used. I like to use World of Warcraft as an example. There's an EXP bonus called Rest EXP that you get from not playing for a while. Originally it was called a penalty with no change to the system. People hated when it was a penalty but loved it when it was a bonus. So...make of that what you will. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It really just goes to show how reactionary the right can get, honestly. It's quite an amazing display of hypocrisy. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a proof of the horseshoe theory: both the Left Wing and the Right Wing are a bunch of goddamned shitheads!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree, if the Left didn't have a huge number of people just as pigheaded about fighting against Parental Guidelines or whatever. Don't pretend that the Right has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

But anyway, should we include parental guidelines in the article in any manner? CorruptUser (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Totally. They're the fucking same, just being endorsed by the other side of the political spectrum.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Coping, avoidance, triggger warnings and safe spaces

I have the feeling that trigger warnings and safe spaces are revolving around a coping strategy, which is called avoidance. When you have PTSD, the relived memories can be enormously vivid and real. Thus people are avoiding the memories, but by avoiding they are actually reinforcing them. (Don't think about the pink elephant effect). The same goes for safe spaces. Avoiding social awkward events, because they make you feel unsafe, is the worst coping strategy there is. You are only enforcing the idea that it is unsafe. It is not protecting people, it is damaging them. Avoidance is almost always a bad idea (except of course, the danger is real).

I can wipe up some references for this, but I see that the article is already pointing this way, so I am not sure how useful it is. However I have the feeling it can be made a bit more explicit. --95.96.91.11 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a reference mentioning avoidance and PTSD[2] although I can't find any specific studies on trigger warnings. More science is good. Annquin (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding, right?

RationalWiki is supposed to criticize ridiculous concepts like "microagressions", "trigger warnings", "safe spaces", or "mansplaining", NOT support it. And this is coming from a left-leaning black guy.108.16.6.88 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a left-leaning East-Asian guy, I think it's a matter of terminology and where the boundary is drawn. While it might be silly and/or stupid to most of us for someone to, for example, mandate or insist on trigger warnings to pictures of female athletes and haute cuisine because it might trigger those who suffer from body image or eating disorders, I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is against NSFW/NSFL warnings and MPAA ratings for movies (which, mind, list exactly what might be triggering or offensive on them on the poster/VHS box/DVD/BluRay case).

...and we do have a "criticisms" section for these. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There is criticism in this article, but it is somewhat light. To be fair, this article is not fully grown and maybe not even ready for kindergarten yet. Give it time and maybe, if you're up for it, some well-considered text.

I actually feel a little ambivalent because, on the one hand, I don't care to surprise people with pornography or upsetting material. On the other hand, I don't feel like a detailed warning label is needed for every societal interaction. MarmotHead (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say exactly, e.g. "grisly images, some nudity" doesn't really give you a clear picture of what's gonna be shown. I'm generally okay with female nudity for example, but I don't like the other type. Though descriptions that are too detailed might in turn become triggering in their own right. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why exactly should we criticise topics like trigger warnings? Because they're not necessary? Or because it's fun to upset people? There's a lot of critics of the concept of trigger warnings, safe spaces, mansplaining, etc, but most of them don't seem to be very rational. And coming here saying "we should do something" without offering a reason certainly isn't rational. Annquin (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Stalin also identified himself as left-leaning and however he criminalized homosexuality. Therefore being "left-leaning" doesn't allow you to be sexist. Redsjw (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Does Trump generate a trigger warning? 86.146.99.9 (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

haidt

Someone with no clue as to why this article is an anti-progressive piece of trash added a whole lot of its bullshit to the page and also tagged the page as 'Liberal moonbattery' showing the only thing they know about triggers are the 'topkek' variety

I'd delete it myself but the site won't let me

I addded it because it made a fairly convincing argument and was authored by an actual social psychologist, quotes actual psychiatrists, and is co-authored by a prominent active civil libertarian. Declaring an argument invalid because you think it's against your ideology is Conservapedia levels of insanity. ClothCoat (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a garbage argument. 'Civil libertarian' sounds like a code word for 'right-wing anti-progressive' considering that there are dozens of counter-arguments to Haidt's piece across the internet after his garbage got published in The Atlantic http://sevenscribes.com/straw-freshmen-why-the-war-on-campus-pc-culture-is-bullshit/ https://newrepublic.com/article/122543/trigger-warning-myth http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-palumboliu/coddled-students-thats-not-the-problem_b_8080166.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/why-i-use-trigger-warnings.html?_r=0 http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/campus_pc_panic_is_getting_ridiculous_heres_what_a_trigger_warning_really_looks_like_and_what_it_does_for_students/ http://www.themarysue.com/trigger-warnings-arent-coddling/ http://thehumanist.com/commentary/warning-this-article-seeks-a-middle-ground-in-the-trigger-warning-debate https://thinkprogress.org/the-phony-debate-about-political-correctness-f81da03b3bdb#.yffhdabm7 http://qz.com/482084/trigger-warnings/ http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2015/09/trigger-warnings-are-not-censorship/ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/todays-students-are-anything-but-coddled http://stevendkrause.com/2015/08/18/trigger-warnings-triggering-memories-of-teaching-from-long-ago/ Haidt and Lukianoff's arguments were terribly flawed

THEN ADD THE SOURCES TO THE ARTICLE! This is documenting critiques. If there's a rebuttal then post the rebuttal, don't just delete it. ClothCoat (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I already said I can't change the article at all. That's why I started this post. To get someone to change it for me because your addition of those two hacks' assbackwards ideas of these topics and the fact you tagged the page as 'liberal moonbattery' (my mistake that you didn't do the same at Microaggression but the page is still full of Haidt's and Lukianoff's moronic rhetoric) is reason enough to get rid of the garbage you added to this page

Really? Adding that category had to do with the lack of scientific concensus and the more over the top examples but it's so controversial I'll take it out for now. ClothCoat (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm diving through this gish gallop nice collection of articles and it seems to be largely ad hominems, handwaving, moving the goalposts, and borderline conspiracy theories so far but if I find a criticism worthwhile I'll add it. Otherwise you need to make an account. Also I'm not seeing a reply so far to the criticisms that mental health can be damaged by these methods, it seems to be sidestepped altogether. ClothCoat (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Haidt has always been a right-wing idiot and he used the 2015 campus protests to make himself seem smart and push a right-wing agenda that the liberals are ruining education, considering everyone and their mother came out and wrote counterpoints to that Atlantic piece which is really the "All Lives Matter" of free speech absolutism. This seems to be the best one and goes into detail on how Haidt and Lukianoff's 'political correctness gone mad' conclusion is all blown out of proportion and is cherry picking. This is also a good alternative. Also you must be mental if you think that exposure therapy is something that should ever happen outside of a controlled environment. You don't expect someone to get over arachnophobia by pushing them into a spider web with no warning. Also, this one covers the mental health aspect.

First sentence is an irrelevent ad hominem. Zero rebuttal to fortune telling in the last one and even he notes he's not a psychologist. He's just giving his personal experience that giving a trigger warning CAN lead to a better talk, but not neccessarilly.

Also you must be mental if you think that exposure therapy is something that should ever happen outside of a controlled environment I believe that is the argument, that a university classroom is a safer environment then the workplace or "real world". Also it's more "exposure" then "exposure therapy" per se. Obviously more severe cases require therapy. Much of the argument in the last piece is a bit of strawman, Haidt is focusing on cases where professors feel required to issue trigger warnings and professors are reported to admins if they don't or they issue a warning and offend a student anyways, not on professors who do it cause they feel like it. ClothCoat (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The second piece is awful. It just ad hominems and handwaves all incidents given by demanding more incidents be presented. Mental health and scientific evidence is treated as at most a secondary concern in comparison to left-wing causes. ClothCoat (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless I will add the pieces as responses to the essay. ClothCoat (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's all ad hominems because Haidt is a right-wing conservative quack trying to ride a wave of anti-progressive hysteria. 59.106.13.151 (talk)

If you want to troll talk pages I can't stop you but you need to sign off on posts (BoN's can sign off on posts right?). When you leave a comment without signing off and on the same paragraph line as another user it looks like they left the comment. ClothCoat (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed page protection so all editors can edit the page. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My problem with Trigger Warnings

The concept of trigger warnings seems to ignore basic psychology at several points. For instance someone who has been traumatized may have negative associations with totally innocuous things as they are associated with their trauma. In fact, the innocuous things can sometimes be harder to endure than brutal depictions. Take for example the movie "Rosewater" which no one ever watched. It is named after the thing the protagonist is scared shitless of because he associates it (justifiably) with being tortured. What do you think would have a higher chance of traumatizing him, a video of someone getting beat up or the smell of rosewater? Similarly soldiers who have seen their comrades burn to death or being exploded to death are sometimes retraumatized by barbecues or firecrackers. Should there be trigger warnings for barbecue firecrackers or rosewater? Of course not. There should be better therapy and at the very least veterans should be given all the treatment, therapy, medication and whatever they need out of the federal budget. So that at some point in time they are not as scared of seemingly innocuous things as they once were. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So these are examples of specific contexts where a trigger warning would be unfeasible or unjustifiable. This doesn't function well as an argument against using them in other contexts. See Nirvana fallacy. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The argument against them in other contexts would be that there's no scientific evidence of their effectiveness and psychologists and psychiatrists don't seem to be enamored by them. Someone above was wondering what the difference between content warnings and triggers warnings are. The later is supposed to be directed for the very specific cause of aiding mental health in case someone has PTSD or other mental problems, while the former is value neutral (it's for everyone). If there's no evidence "trigger warnings" aid mental health, or if in fact it can harm mental health, it's just pseudopsychology. If some people are using it as an excuse to complain about subjects or people they don't like then it's just pseudopychology that's sometimes used to blunt political (or other random) opponents over the head with. ClothCoat (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it can be important to not make exposure therapy into (outdated, mostly considered unethical) immersion therapy. There exists a line there, but you know, it's subjective. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster here. Trigger warnings can and have been taken to the extreme in recent years, and this should not happen. Although there are legitimate cases where they are appropriate, I think we should better cover the overuse of trigger warnings. PBfreespace (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The real question is: Do trigger warnings work (at all?) if not, how would they have to be changed to work? Is that possible. Look in my - admittedly limited - understanding of psychology the vast majority of people who experienced mental trauma is not re-traumatized by the things trigger warnings are usually designed to cover, but by seemingly innocuous things, trigger warnings cannot possibly cover. If there is relevant scientific literature on that, which proves me wrong, by all means show me and include it into the article, but thus far no one seems to have grasped my point that even many traumatized people have a bigger problem with seemingly minor things a "healthy" person would not associate with bad things rather than fictional depictions of violence, abuse and the likes. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No. They aren't evidence based. Much like almost any part of any conversation. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)