I'm reading people bashing rape culture terms. I'm reading people asking for changes in institutions being mocked as whiny. I'm reading people bashing an idea that doesn't censor anything. No content is being changed, it's simply telling you what the content is. People like you or I have no real need for trigger warning because we don't have deeply traumatic experiences intrinsically tied to systems that are embedded in our culture. Many times people may be linking to text from, for example, a rapist, describing why or how he rapes. Many people have anxiety disorders from their own rapes. I know many people like this. Trigger warnings are simply for the peace of mind of the reader, not for people who "can't handle seeing realities of the world" (an argument I see often, thankfully not parroted here), but for people who legitimately have mental struggles they're coping with such as anxiety, depression, anorexia, bulimia, where reading certain things have a very real chance of triggering them.
All fair points. The internet being the cesspool it is, I think it's sometimes hard to distinguish between legit concerns and hyper sensitivity. I don't think anyone on here was mocking victims, but rather mocking the name calling that disagreements often spiral into. Edit: But let's keep in mind also that being insensitive (especially inadvertently) isn't anti-feminist. I try to be very in tune with equality, but I've been insensitive many times, often by mistake or ignorance.
What I personally find somewhat disconcerting about your comments thus far, is that you claim to be taking issue, while not directly addressing people and opting instead to speak in generalities, which is a big part of the issue in question. If you are referring to comments that I made and the exchange I had with b_b, then I'd have to agree with what he said in reply to the comment I'm responding to. However, from a social-psychological standpoint, my problem with this kind of language is that it avoids conflict and thus avoids deepening an understanding of the issue and while it seeks to protect, may actually shelter and promote the hypersensitivity b_b mentions. Do they actually function in that way though? I can imagine that identifying particular articles as having trigger warnings might actually work in the opposite way. For example, tell someone not to look at something-- they'll often look at it. Furthermore, why don't I see articles with trigger warnings for veterans? PTSD can be triggered by a variety of things, not just stuff in articles. If trigger warnings are as effective in print as you seem to be suggesting, then surely labeling other things with trigger warnings is therefore pragmatic, no? But how would this operate? Would we then have to painstakingly discover all of the potential triggers for anyone who ever suffered from mental difficulties related to trauma? How would we label the sound of a rumbling truck, a particular smell or a feeling?Trigger warnings are simply for the peace of mind of the reader, not for people who "can't handle seeing realities of the world" (an argument I see often, thankfully not parroted here), but for people who legitimately have mental struggles they're coping with such as anxiety, depression, anorexia, bulimia, where reading certain things have a very real chance of triggering them.
I speak in generalities because this is endemic of social issues and debates far beyond the realm of just this particular thread. I do not name names because while they have relevance to this particular conversation, the things you state are platitudes that are all over the internet and political conversations. I reject the notion that simply having respect for people's mental well-being breeds hypersensitivity. It reeks of the American's right's shaky platform of "bootstraps" and comes precariously close to MRAs crying out that people are hypersensitive each time their sexist language gets called out (not the case here, to clarify). It's not hypersensitive when, as a gender, or a race, or a generally disadvantaged group--in this case people coping with illness--ask for a simple thing that can improve their lives, help them get well more easily, and has a net neutral impact on the presenter. Yes. It does work that way. Quite often. I know a great many people that have them work that way and, as they are functioning, real human beings, they make the personal choice to read or not read, and having in mind what they may see does help them. I have also seen TW's for PTSD. I know veterans personally who have sought help for their PTSD and in the process they brought up their finding of trigger warnings and, while it would not be helpful for him, it would be for some of his friends (he mostly had sleep triggers, while friends of his couldn't watch war movies). Of course you can't find every trigger. That's not the intention, but we as people do our best to help make life easier for people. This is an especially simple thing to do that can be greatly helpful to people, yet people oppose anyway. I'm sure I can pull parallels to a great number of historical cases of that because it's just human nature.
I do not think that "platitudes" is the word you're looking for. I do think that this has been an opportunity for you personally to shed light on an issue you find to be important by giving people something concrete to latch on to, for example texts that you've found to be particularly enlightening. Go ahead and generalize, but I don't think that waving a moralistic stick will help people to understand your point of view. People can only work with what they've experienced themselves, so while your anecdotal examples might well be true, I (and other readers of this thread) can't access those experiences to see why you've responded to this thread in this way. The term "rape culture" can't be seen as something that's not inflammatory, nor something that is not implicitly accusatory. There's more than one side to this thing and right now I don't get the sense that you're acknowledging that.I speak in generalities because this is endemic of social issues and debates far beyond the realm of just this particular thread. I do not name names because while they have relevance to this particular conversation, the things you state are platitudes that are all over the internet and political conversations.