[zug_zug]

What the heck is this?

The presumption of this article is that trigger warnings get you emotionally ready for an adverse subject, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they are for.

I figure most people often want warnings on their books/videos/etc "e.g. this is a live-leak of somebody dying" so they can avoid the material.

---

Per his twitter "Well, too bad for all y'all. Trigger warnings do not seem to encourage avoidance." ... Sounds kinda us-vs-them.

I'm 100% sure I do not click on videos on reddit that indicate they are videos of somebody dying. No amount of statistical papers will change that. I highly doubt I'm the only one.

[robertlagrant]

We've had that for decades as PEGI ratings or film classifications. I was under the impression that trigger warnings were something different.

[kayodelycaon]

Personally, the authors I've worked with use Content Warning as the term. For example, the opening of Law and Order SVU pretty clearly spells out you're in for some deeply disturbing shit.

Trigger warnings are content warnings, just spelling out what the content is: i.e. suicide, cutting, rape, etc.

To use one of my stories that's on a podcast:

> This is an adult story for mature listeners, if that's not your cup of tea or there are children listening, you can skip this story and come back next week. Content warning: this story contains mentions of past self-harm and past traumas.

Maybe that's a little specific, but it gives you an idea of how graphic the content is. Regardless, I personally know some of the people listening who will want to skip my story.

[rsynnott]

> I was under the impression that trigger warnings were something different

So, the basic intent, on the face of it, is a little different (a "trigger warning", properly, warns of something which may trigger PTSD, a content warning merely warns of something without any particular view on _why_ someone might want to avoid it), but in practice they're functionally similar.