[lazide]

Eh, NSFL type warnings (and experience) might provide an alternative explanation?

The warnings don’t help when people’s curiosity (morbid, compulsive, or otherwise) has not been counteracted by learned experience (or tools via therapy) that they don’t like it or it doesn’t help them.

The warnings are generally not generic (aka ‘bad stuff here’), they’re usually quite descriptive of what category it covers. Far more than a NSFL warning for sure!

If someone keeps going, it’s not because they did so accidentally. They either thought it was going to be fine and they could handle it (and most can), or couldn’t stop themselves even if they knew it was going to be bad.

[slothtrop]

Makes me wonder what the overlap is between those demanding trigger warnings and those habitually stumbling upon NSFL material. I'd venture very little. Notwithstanding, I have avoided virtually all NSFL stuff and don't understand trigger warnings. However, I think content should be described when rating media.. for instance, R/M ratings could have "rape" in its description when depicted which would make trigger warnings redundant. When it comes to mere conversation (on yt or whatever), it's already redundant.

[romwell]

>Notwithstanding, I have avoided virtually all NSFL stuff and don't understand trigger warnings.

How?

Trigger warning = NSFL tag on the post

Allows you to have informed consent to consume content - or nope out of it.

For most people, "NSFL" is stuff like extreme gore.

For survivors, NSFL also includes whatever experience nearly did them in (so, literally NSFL). Hence more words needed.

Did this clear it up?

[slothtrop]

Nope. Re-read what I wrote.