[mhouse]

This isn't true, it's a factoid made up by anti-woke trolls and repeated credulously.

"Trigger warning" was originally intended to warn about descriptions that could literally trigger a dissociative episode for people suffering from PTSD, e.g. victims of child abuse or sexual violence.

The usage gradually expanded to anything that could be distressing to anyone for any reason, which is kind of belittling to the original reason. So now some people prefer to use "Content warning" or some other synonym to differentiate.

It's nothing to do with the word "trigger" being associated with guns.

[coder9874]

I'm afraid that you're wrong. See page 11. https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag....

Stanford seems to have beaten the "anti-woke trolls" at their own game.

[OmegaPoint]

> trigger warning

> The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.

[IshKebab]

Hmm can't say I entirely disagree with them on that one. I mean it's clearly not a harmful phrase but it definitely is a useless one.

It carries almost zero information. Who is going to read "trigger warning" and think "oo they know that I'm highly sensitive about this specific unknown subject. I don't want to get triggered, I'll stop!"

Contrast it with something like "spoilers" where everyone agrees on what it means and people generally really don't want to read spoilers.

[mhouse]

The document you linked doesn't mention "victims of gun violence". It contradicts your original claim.

[astrange]

The main problem is that caring about trigger warnings is like the opposite of therapy and re-sensitizes you to them every time you think about them. It's not a good strategy.

[dragonwriter]

> “Trigger warning” was originally intended to warn about descriptions that could literally trigger a dissociative episode for people suffering from PTSD

To the extent it was, it was based on a completely misinformed idea of how triggering in PTSD works. In practice, if not in intent, it has been, from the beginning, an appropriation of the language of PTSD to serve as a vehicle for expressing personal value judgements and content preferences that have nothing to do with that. And there is research, IIRC, that it is actually counterproductive, inducing stress without helping anyone avoid PTSD triggering.

[mhouse]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. The original use of "trigger warning" was very specifically intended for use on graphic material that could trigger a dissociative episode, for example an explicit description of child abuse or rape.

The phenomenon you are referring to - appropriating the language of PTSD for concerns of politics, taste or personal offence - is exactly why some people advocate replacing "trigger warning" with "content warning" or similar (and not because of associations with gun violence, as OP asserted).