[lazide]

Sorry to hear about your loss and experience. It does sound really terrible.

The challenge society wide is, of course, where is the line, and when is it useful to do at all?

Which the study seems to be saying, it isn’t generally useful for the ‘less common horrors’, at least not with a somewhat generic warning.

[wpietri]

Sure. I think it's something we have to figure out jointly between people of different experiences. But I agree with others that definitionally the effectiveness for less common stuff can't be measured by looking at the general-audience reaction.

[dmix]

If you were a university or journalist or public figure tweeting etc, it's important to consider the generic utility.

Your example is very relevant as it's both very real and also extremely specific to your own world and context.

Trying to predict every potential 'trigger' imposes a major mental burden both on the authors/editors to find them and on the reader in the distracting way it's prominently appended to information

If you're talking to a very specific audience I don't see anything wrong with it. But making it a common/general practice seems like a completely wasteful exercise. Especially with the way the grievance crowd is never satisfied with only a few people getting special treatment, the list always grows exponentially. Then eventually there will be a mountain of trigger warnings for every potential niche.

So if we agree there's some very real (growing) costs involved, the other factor is does it provide real benefit for x% of readers? Then you can evaluate the ROI. If studies show people are even more likely to read it anyway (or maybe can't "prepare" themselves in a meaningful way) it's hard to see much benefits vs costs.

[wpietri]

I don't think one should let consideration drive paralysis. But I don't think devoting a modest amount of time to being considerate is wasteful.

That said, I think there are plenty of people who feel resentful that people are now asking them to be considerate when before they could get away with being thoughtless jerks. That's especially the case when the requests for consideration come from groups constructed as lesser (women, non-dominant ethnic groups, gender/sexuality minorities, etc). Those people can go fly a kite.

I disagree that the costs are growing. My experience is that I spend an approximately constant amount of time on consideration. On occasion, somebody points out how something I said could be unpleasant or harmful to some set of people. I think about it, usually find another way to make my point, and move on. From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them, and so don't end up learning. That's a choice that they can make, but I don't see any reason to coddle them.

[dmix]

> Those people can go fly a kite.

> From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them

This sort of smug/stereotypical dismissal of why people don't care to add preambles to every comment/paragraph they write or say aloud that might offend or upset someone is exactly why people push back on this sort of thing.

Ignore all counterpoints and just accuse them all of not caring about x victim's predicament. Surely that will convince them.

[wpietri]

Oh, I see. When you write it's an intolerable burden to think of the feelings of others. When I write it's absolutely awful that I don't coddle your incredibly delicate feelings. Noted.

[lazide]

FYI, This right here is how folks get punched in the face or cutoff from their family IRL.