[Spivak]

They seemingly didn’t study the thing that people actually want the answer to.

Given a person who is triggered by a specific type of content do they avoid things labeled with that specific type of content more than if it was unlabeled? It’s one of those things that seems so obviously true when you talk to people.

To me this study is actually huge to support trigger warnings and content labels. They don’t cause people across a population overall to avoid the content, they act as a positive signal for people who are looking for it (like R rating on horror movies), and they have no effect on the experience — it makes the response no worse and doesn’t spoil it for people who want it.

[kayodelycaon]

I definitely use content warnings to avoid stuff. If I see suicide, "that's a nope from me dawg".

I feel like I'm not asking for much here. :(

[tomjen3]

How would you have a CW: suicide without spoiling that a suicide will happen?

[catiopatio]

Lots of overly fragile people have hang-ups, and lots more will claim them — or wallow in them — if there’s an advantage to do so, and even if that advantage is merely a boost to their ego: you’re special, you’re unique, your problems and inability to control them are not a failing, but a genuine disability society should accommodate.

We can’t possibly account for every possible form of extreme emotional fragility, nor is it our responsibility to account for it.

The attempt to shift that responsibility to speakers is itself just a form of social aggression, status-seeking and control.

So yes, it is asking for too much.

[PuppyTailWags]

Hey, you sound like people haven't been very kind to you, and have taught you their cruelty is normal. I just want to say I'm sorry and I hope you find someone who can teach you that people can genuinely care about your wellbeing and do things that they know increase your quality of life, such as avoiding topics that they know make you uncomfortable.

I hope you find someone that teaches you that kindness doesn't have to be conditional.

[catiopatio]

Of course kindness is conditional.

Unconditional kindness is reserved for parents’ relationship with their very young children.

With anyone else and in any other circumstance, unconditional kindness is pathological.

It is enabling, not helping, and it is detrimental to those who need to build resilience.

[PuppyTailWags]

Kindness doesn't have to be conditional. Helping someone build resilience is also providing the support they need to do so, for example being a shoulder to cry on when a loved one passes, kvetching at a bar about the daily stresses of work.

Enabling someone isn't kindness, unablement often occurs because confrontation is deeply uncomfortable and is a completely different wiring than choosing to be kind.

[Spivak]

Good lord, who shit in your Cheerios? This is not the kind of thing someone weighing societal costs says, this is resentment and it runs deep.

You do not have to stoic. Feeling emotions is good for your mental health and is not a sign of weakness.

You are allowed to want attention. You are even allowed to ask for it. It is a normal part of being a social creature. You deserve to be loved, cared for, and have your needs attended to.

When you are deprived of the attention you need it is normal to feel resentment towards people who get it and come up with reasons they must be undeserving. It’s a defense mechanism. Because if they are getting attention because they deserve it then your brain tells you that because you’re not getting attention it must mean you’re not deserving. Pushing past this is a sign of emotional maturity.

Different responses pto emotion get different reactions from people. If your response is something visible but non-threatening like tears, curling up, shaking people will be sympathetic and help you. This is healthy. This is good. It’s not an act it’s a release and a signal to others of your needs. You are allowed to ask for help.

You are allowed to be vulnerable, and being vulnerable around people can establish trust and mutual respect. Someone who you see as gaining status probably did so because they opened up, shared their feelings, and asked for what they needed. That kind thing makes you more human and naturally makes people like you.

You are allowed to set boundaries for yourself. Saying you can’t do violence when picking a movie to watch is a boundary not control. It’s your responsibility to try to not cause others harm or distress and in turn it is others’ responsibility do the same to you.

Nobody is forcing you to add trigger warnings. No one will beat down your door and string you up for not adding them, but then you have to read the room which might be harder. Asking “hey I know suicide is a sensitive topic, is everyone good to talk about it?” is a good way to not accidentally bring up sore topics around people whose lives you don’t know.

[catiopatio]

None of what you described sounds resilient or healthy.

Yes, we’re allowed to feel emotions, but no, they’re not the responsibility of strangers, acquaintances, or coworkers.

If you’re semi-regularly crying, curling up, or shaking in a non-familial environment, you need to seek professional help, not burden those around you with what is clearly a serious personal mental imbalance.