[dclowd9901]

Aren't trigger warnings a bit daft? How on earth are you supposed to reasonably account for a universe of possible scenarios that might "trigger" someone.

By the way I say this fully aware that I am privileged to not suffer from, well, whatever triggers actually do to people... ("Feel bad" is all I can figure)

[DanBC]

In theory trigger warnings are used rarely, to protect people currently suffering from PTSD. The aim is not to let those people avoid unpleasant situations, but to give them time to prepare and to get support for afterward.

In practice they're used far too often and at unsuitable times, and are used to avoid all discussion of difficult topics, so yes, they've now become a bit daft.

That's a shame, because it means that people who need them don't get them (and are mocked for asking for them); people who don't need them ask for them all the time on anything; and a bunch of vile hateful idiots spew their ignorant bile any time trigger warnings are mentioned.

[anigbrowl]

I do suffer from PTSD and I find trigger warnings deeply unhelpful. If anything, they raise my blood pressure and short circuit the process of reading context for potential stressors, which is IMHO very necessary for managing and eventually recovering from stress.

I see three problems with trigger warnings. One is that some people have developed a habit of writing 'trigger warning for blah' at the beginning of something and then just going on to vent or throw the literary equivalent of a pity party, which readers are implicitly forbidden to criticize in any way. Another is that the worthy purpose of warning others about the potential for offence can easily degenerate into social engineering in the hands of an unscrupulous person. One form of this is to demand special treatment, while another form is to deliberately trigger anxiety in others while evading responsibility for it by pointing to existence of the trigger warning.

The biggest problem by far though is that anything could be triggering to someone - like a perverse version of rule 34, if it exists there is a traumatic version of it. This is the entire basis of the horror movie genre: you take something that looks innocuous and make it into something scary by juxtaposing it with something awful, in order to create suspenseful dread the next time you see the innocuous thing. This is why creature features aren't really horror movies; while it's horrific to depict someone eaten by a shark or a giant bear or whatever, you already know those things are dangerous and if they show up you are in trouble. So while you might feel scared watching Jaws, you knew from the outset that you were (vicariously) going into a hazardous situation, and conversely that you can avoid scary encounters with hungry sharks by not swimming in the ocean or visiting aquariums. But if I show you a movie where, I dunno, playing certain chords on an old piano can summon an evil spirit* and the movie is convincingly scary, then you'll get a little shudder every time you see a piano lurking in the corner of the room.

* this seems like a pretty stupid premise, but in medieval times certain dissonant note combinations were avoided in western church music because the harmonic instability was considered too evil-sounding. A modern parallel is to sing a well-known children's song in a minor key, which invariably sounds creepy.

[dawnbreez]

The original definition of a "trigger" was for PTSD. However, people have begun to use it for anything upsetting, which makes the term less meaningful. It's now used satirically about as often as it is seriously.

[surfaceTensi0n]

(Note: I did not read the article so I can't speak to the GP's point, but this comment isn't really about the article.)

I don't think so. I don't think people are asking for all possible triggering scenarios to be covered. They're asking for people to take some time and consider how others (less privilege || victims of abuse ||etc.) might be affected. A trigger warning is essentially a heads up.

[flogic]

In general people want trigger warnings for the more obvious things. So, content that delves deeply into abuse, assault and the like.

[dragonwriter]

I don't think that there.is any evidence that "the more obvious things" are actually common triggers (on the PTSD sense); there common sources of offense to that works on a more conscious level, but AFAIK that's almost completely unrelated to the mechanisms involved in triggering, even when the subjects involved relate to the source of trauma; it seems more hijacking the very real idea of triggering related to traumatic experience as a means of asserting a privilege against offense.

Now, personalized trigger warnings in a context where particular individuals are known to be sensitive to particular things as triggers make a lot of sense, but AFAICT generalized trigger warnings have no valid basis in anything that has to do with actual triggering, and those pushing them trivialize real trauma-related conditions.