[bengotow]

Just want to drive by and mention - a friend told me to play DDLC and I was highly skeptical given the anime pin-up girl art style. I eventually gave in and gave it a shot.

It's an amazing "playable story" unlike anything I have ever played. Super creative and well worth the couple hours it takes to play. I think it could use a few trigger warnings and it should be rated PG-13 / R, but there's stuff on Netflix 10x more disturbing so I don't quite grok the Google push back on this one.

[Shank]

> I think it could use a few trigger warnings

Doesn't DDLC start with the following?

> This game is not suitable for those who are easily disturbed. Individuals suffering from anxiety or depression may not have a safe experience playing this game. For content warnings, please visit https://ddlc.moe/warning.

Then the plus version even added in-game content warnings?

https://teamsalvato.com/news/updates-to-content-warnings-in-...

Also, the game is rated PEGI 18, USK 18, M, CERO C, in various countries.

[JayDustheadz]

If you want something just as surprising & good, I'd recommend giving "Slay the princess" a go - a really unique hidden gem. Or, if you're not into it, then check Euro Brady's playthroughs for this game ( he also did DDLC btw. ) - the commentary is awesome and gives insight into many things you wouldn't normally find out yourself.

[hofrogs]

Slay the Princess is a very good one, can confirm. It's best to go in completely blind.

[tmtvl]

It's hard to talk about STP without any spoilers, but I was kinda underwhelmed after how much it got hyped up. I liked the... adversary? You know, the fighty-fight, fight fight fight; but I've no great desire to find everything.

[oceansky]

This genre of games are called visual novels.

Doki Doki was created with the Ren'Py Visual Novel Engine by the way.

[ryukoposting]

And it's also one of the most impressive displays of RenPy's capabilities you'll ever see.

Plenty of games do amazing things with ren'py that you wouldn't think were possible just by looking at the dialogue DSL. Maps, HUDs, minigames, incredibly dynamic pathways through the game. But DDLC takes it to a different level, partly by looking so "normal" on its surface.

In college I made some spare cash writing Ren'py games for some creatives online who had the writing and illustration chops, but needed programming help. At the time, DDLC was the model for great game design in Ren'Py. There are plenty of more technically impressive Ren'py games nowadays, but DDLC is still a terrific example of technical sophistication facilitating the story.

Ren'py is awesome by the way. A tour de force of software design, in my opinion.

[mcmoor]

I've played it, but what's impressive about this game (technically)? I don't remember its implementation being anything special as opposed its plot.

[dchftcs]

I think it's mainly in relation to the constraints of the game engine, and also that the game engine being flexible enough to enable the gimmicks. I haven't played DDLC and probably never will, but from what I've read about it, like games with similar core themes (not dating sim) it has some gimmicks that tend to stretch the capabilities of a closed-down game engine, sometimes requiring patches to the engine itself. In this case the game engine Renpy offers an extensive DSL that makes it easy to add story scenes, media and dialogues, but allows you to fall back to python to do some tricky things.

[JoshTriplett]

It does a lot of screwing with the interface and game data in ways most VNs do not.

[ryukoposting]

(SPOILERS)

It breaks the fourth wall in unexpected, and deeply unsettling ways.

As a gamer you take for granted that, at any moment, you can simply exit. The UI is a trustworthy boundary between the imagined world of a horror game, and the comfort of reality. In DDLC, you don't even feel safe on the title screen.

Most ren'py games, even the very good ones, barely change the UI at all. Roadwarden doesn't look like a ren'py game at all... until you open the save menu, and then it looks exactly like a ren'py game. Having developed ren'py games, I can tell you why people avoid touching that part of the boilerplate code: it's the one part of ren'py where the abstractions aren't well thought out. It's very fragile. To me, that makes DDLC all the more impressive from a technical point of view. It warps and abuses the most rigid and uncooperative part of the engine, and to great narrative effect.

[crashabr]

Any examples of other impressive Ren'py showcases?

[ryukoposting]

I personally helped develop a game with an entire inventory/crafting system, and an isometric map. Final product never saw the light of day, sadly.

People have made some pretty slick turn-based combat systems. Some deck builders, others more spellcasting/mana oriented.

And it's renpy so like 80% of the games are straight up porn, so I'm not naming a single one here lol.

[wincy]

I really enjoyed Roadwarden. Interesting take on an old fantasy genre and gave me “this is ancient history” vibes. I’m not usually into visual novels but beat this game. It’s available for under $3 right now, I am showing 20 hours played, totally worth it.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1155970/Roadwarden/

[brendoelfrendo]

Wait a minute, Roadwarden was made in RenPy? That's awesome, I never would have guessed.

[ryukoposting]

Wow, that's a very pretty game. Ren'py games usually have a certain, um, sheen to them, and this doesn't have that at all.

[TheDong]

"Analogue: A Hate Story" and its sequel do some technically interesting things, and they both also have interesting stories, I can recommend them.

http://ahatestory.com/

[dataveg]

Misericorde is an amazing visual novel available on Steam or itch. All built by the author (Xeecee) in Ren’py - https://store.steampowered.com/app/1708110/Misericorde_Volum...

[torginus]

Isn't RenPy basically a game engine under the hood? So if you have the programming chops, you can make anything with Python.

[samrus]

Yeah but its such a standout in there that i wouldnt even consider it part of that genre. It uses the same medium but does such crazy things with it that its nothing like any other visual novels

[Polycryptus]

I really can't agree, there are so many great VNs out there and DDLC only really stands out in that it plays heavily to the English-speaking world's preconceived notions of VNs as "nothing more than simple dating simulators"

[YurgenJurgensen]

DDLC is definitely not breaking its “baby’s first 電波ゲー” reputation in this thread.

[politelemon]

TV shows have reached a point where the ratings are blurry and R content is becoming normalised and ubiquitous with little to no enforcement.

Games are still seen as something children engage in despite the average gamers being adults.

[chocochunks]

Games have ratings in virtually every country. The commercial version of DDLC, DDLC Plus is rated M in North America for 17+. The original free version lacks a rating because it was a free indie game. And the website has the line "This game is not suitable for children or those who are easily disturbed."

[mastermage]

Classical Google removing things that are pretty normal while leaving actively harmful, scams, gambling etc. apps online.

[jquery]

DDLC borrowed a lot from YOU and ME and HER: A Love Story (Kimi to Kanojo to Kanojo no Koi), which I consider generally superior to DDLC. I say this not to diminish DDLC, which is excellent, but as a plug for anyone who enjoyed DDLC and wants more mind warping content like that.

[debugnik]

I believe Dan Salvato, the creator of DDLC, said he wasn't aware of YOU and ME and HER until late in development.

[jquery]

Convergent evolution. It’s probably just an amazing and fortuitous coincidence. They look similar but have completely different internal structure, like a bug that pretends to be a leaf. I can’t go any further without spoilers, so I won’t.

[debugnik]

There might be a slim evolutionary thread between them, actually. DDLC made a reference to a certain Gravity Falls episode which has a similar premise by releasing exactly 3 years later, and that one could have been inspired by the then recent release of Totono during production.

But I agree it's convergence for the most part, it's not that hard to come up with that premise even if it hasn't been too common.

[throwaway2046]

The official website states on the front page:

    This game is not suitable for children or those who are easily disturbed.

[echelon]

We do not need our hyperscaler minders telling us what content we can and cannot consume.

This ought to be grounds to litigate antitrust. This should not be happening.

We need web-based app installs without scare walls ("downloading from the internet is dangerous"), without hidden settings menus to enable them ("Settings > Apps > Special app access > Install unknown apps"), and without any interference or meddling from the hyperscalers.

Tyranny of defaults = 0.00001% of users will ever fall into these buckets = Google knows exactly the evil shit they're doing. Apple not even allowing it is almost less evil by contrast as they're not pretending.

These devices are too important for two companies to lord over us and tell us what to do.

I hope Lina Khan comes back, and I hope she has some absolute urgency next time. I also hope our pals in the EU and Asia put this shit to rest as well. No citizen of the world should have their devices cucking them like this. This is not what computing is supposed to be. (And let's not discount the fact that competition on these devices is in no way, shape, or form fair anymore. You're taxed to hell and back if you do distribution or outreach on these garrison states.)

These our our devices, Google and Apple. You do not get to control what happens after we buy them. You are both monopolies. You are both allelopathic parasites. Invasive species that have outgrown your ecosystem and invaded all the other ones. Doing damage to everything you touch.

The world needs a cleansing forest fire to restore healthy competition.

[brookst]

I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

That and I don’t see how Google and Apple can both be monopolies in mobile. Is this the “Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs” argument? Never found that persuasive.

Now, reframe as duopoly, and maybe layer in that a platform owner who curates their App Store must allow alternative app stores on equal footing, and I’d be with you.

[lxgr]

> That and I don’t see how Google and Apple can both be monopolies in mobile.

Why not? Monopolies can be market-specific, and Apple does indeed fully control the market of iOS app distribution.

Whether they also are a monopolist on mobile operating systems, smartphones etc. is a separate question.

> I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

Me neither, but in turn I don't think they should be allowed to act as the sole distributor for their respective platforms.

[wat10000]

I don't think companies should be forced to do that in general, but there are some circumstances where I think they should.

A local printing company should not be forced to print things they don't want. But an ISP should be required to transport everything, with exceptions for legal requirements and legitimate network health measures, or get out of the ISP business.

App stores feel more like the latter to me. Especially Apple's where there's no way around it for the average user.

[brookst]

Agreed on the free speech versus common carrier aspects.

But I lean the other way with app stores. The companies hire reviewers, the listings appear in the App Store trade dress, it feels more like a museum or magazine than an ISP. But I get how reasonable people can disagree.

Maybe we need some formal choices: is this a curated App Store that reflects editorial judgment (in which case it must be possible to ship alternatives on equal footing), or is it a common carrier (in which case you can be the only game in town).

The ambiguity doesn’t help, and of course megacorps love shifting the frames depending on context.

[wat10000]

I think your proposed choice would be a good way to go. If you really want to screen out malware or whatever by maintaining exclusivity over the distribution channel, then you need to otherwise provide an equal footing for all apps. If you really want to exercise editorial control and put your name front and center and reject apps that don't fit your brand, then you need to let other distributors exist.

[GoblinSlayer]

It's more like Matrix, it may be a private property and takes resources to run, but it's still big.

[vman81]

> I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

If Apple and Google are hell-bent on killing sideloading, and they control 99% of the mobile market, I think they have an obligation to host things they don't like, as long as it is legal.

[kstenerud]

Remember the days when you could just run whatever software you wanted on your hardware?

[perbu]

I feel like this is captures the point very well. Google removing this software, means that for 99% of the users on the platform, the choice to play this gets taken away from user.

[brookst]

I remember when you had to build the hardware before you could run anything. But I’m not sure that’s super relevant to app stores.

[nancyminusone]

people under 25: no

[mastermage]

Pepperidge Farm Remembers

[Neikius]

Well they are big enough to be called infrastructure now. Similar to payment providers. Them removing things essentially removes them from existence for 99 percent.

[alterom]

>I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

There's platforms, and there's Apple and Google.

You don't need to say "platforms" when you talk about the two companies that control the 99.99999% of the mobile ecosystem.

[stavros]

This should already be illegal under the DMA. I don't know how Google is planning to get out of it.

[echelon]

There hasn't been so much as a finger lifted against antitrust behavior since 2000. They feel as though they're invincible at this point.

[stavros]

Apple got a lot of flak for their shenanigans, but here's hoping the EU puts the hammer down on both of them.

[brookst]

This is false and it weakens your position.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-g...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-prevails-l...

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/19/eu-orders-apple-to-open-up-a...

…and there are many more.

You can say those aren’t enough, but it is 100% fallacious to say there has been zero antitrust actions against Apple and Google since 2000.

[pasquinelli]

can you explain how someone being incorrect about something weakens their position? i assume the position in question is that their should be more trust busting. "there have been these antitrust actions" isn't actually a counter argument to "there should be more antitrust actions", so it doesn't weaken the position, unless i'm not understanding what you mean by that.

you know what my favorite fallacy is? the fallacy fallacy, the mistaken assumption that by showing an argument is invalid you've shown its conclusion is false.

[wilkommen]

None of these cases destroyed any of the defendants' monopoly status, so while there have been some "actions", there certainly haven't been any effective ones.

[stronglikedan]

nah, companies should be able to put all the content warnings they want on their own products, full stop

[alterom]

They weren't talking about the warning.

The warning was cited as an explanation as to why that game was delisted.

The objection was to Google wielding the power of picking and choosing which controversial materials the users are allowed to see.

[wilkommen]

We need a cleansing forest fire of aggressive, effective antitrust enforcement. All we gotta do is enforce the laws that are already on the books, and do so in the spirit of the existing body of case law precedent.

[surgical_fire]

If you only played it once without knowing the ending, I strongly recommend a second playthrough. Some dialogues and poems have a wildly different meaning once you know things.

Also, I fully recommend DDLP+ too. The extra stories don't have any real gameplay, but they are really good, and add.some depth to the characters.

[shawn_w]

I'm not sure I could tolerate a second play through. One part in particular that just goes on and on and on for what feels like forever is really tough to get through and resume the plot.

[jquery]

That’s why every visual novel (well, almost every visual novel) have a skip function. I know exactly the stretch you’re talking about… I think. Just ctrl-skip through it.

[shawn_w]

Wish HN markup had spoiler tags. Let's just say it involved spending quality time with Yuri?

I played it on my Switch; not sure if it has a skip option.

[jquery]

Yep, quality time with the bookworm.

Usually on mobile devices like the Switch or Steam Deck, visual novels have a skip function if you hold one of the triggers.

[raxxorraxor]

Even it is wasn't good, it still is a problem to have Google as a gatekeeper. If they removed this, they removed other content unwanted by Google. It means their app store is inherently moderated and it means they are accountable for the content as well. That should extend to any app that scams their users, which includes also unwanted data extraction.

[Forgeties79]

It’s hands down R to be clear lol but yes amazing experience.

[KennyBlanken]

> I think it could use a few trigger warnings

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that trigger warnings have a positive effect and growing evidence they are either ineffectual or actually negative.

[Anvoker]

If you've ever had trauma, especially recent, you'll appreciate well done content warnings. You don't want the dramatic plot twist to happen to be exactly the topic you've been trying to avoid so that you can slowly get better.

If you've experienced a certain kind of trauma, it's not a matter willpower. It involves a loss of control over one's emotional response and thoughts which can be triggered by things that relate to your trauma.

Don't knock on content warnings just because they lack rigorous evidence or because "trigger warnings" became the butt of jokes for a while. They have a genuine utility.

[cthalupa]

The problem is they are explicitly arguing that all of our best science is that trigger warnings are counter productive for getting better. Just a quick google search of 'scientific support for trigger warnings' will get you all sorts of meta analysis, RCT results, etc. on this. At best they don't seem to actually do anything, and at worst, they actively impede your ability to get better.

That doesn't mean it's a matter of willpower, but it does suggest that avoiding your triggers or trying to use trigger warnings to prepare you for dealing with them provides no benefit. Your use of the word avoid pretty much sums up the core problem here - on a personal enjoyment of day to day life level, avoiding your triggers makes perfect sense. On the long term healing and not being traumatized by them level, you don't want to do that. (Edit: This isn't to say try taking exposure therapy into your own hands and just surround yourself with the stuff. None of this is a replacement for guided therapy. But specifically going out of your way to avoid these things is 'avoidant behavior' and is pretty much universally recognized as being a bad thing when it comes to dealing with PTSD etc.)

That being said, I believe everyone should be able to disclaim what they want and that people can choose how they approach their own self-care, even if it isn't supported by the science.

[Anvoker]

They are a tool like anything else.

Exposure and Response Prevention therapy works. You will never get fully well without exposure. However, it requires that you find stimulus of a magnitude that makes you uncomfortable, but doesn't send you outright spiraling. You need to keep steady while experiencing it for a while.

Content warnings give you the ability to estimate what intensity of negative stimulus you will experience, and this is important when dealing with actual triggers.

Not everyone is yet at the phase where they can handle a certain level of exposure. For some unfortunate cases it takes a long time to be well enough to start being able to handle exposure.

That being said, I do think content warnings need to be specific, not generic. The most useful ones are spoilers, not generic messages to put you on guard. Careful Ao3 authors do a better job at this than most games. There are technical solutions that allow interested parties to get this information without having to spoil the default audience, but we live in a busy world that has a lot of things to care about other than this.

[cthalupa]

Everything you wrote sounds really good in theory - it passes the smell test for me, and I believed it for a long time because it seemed perfectly logical. It all just Made Sense to me in an intuitive manner.

But there's pretty universal agreement that avoidant behavior isn't a good thing. There's a difference between the awful idea of trying to self-manage exposure therapy or forcing exposure and allowing yourself to be exposed to things in the manner that matches the 'real world.' If someone wants to put 'Dead Dove' on their ao3 and provide a a trigger warning because the fic is based around that thing, then yeah, that's one thing. I wouldn't recommend someone go watch Hostel if their trauma is at all related to that either. But most media that has triggering content aren't anywhere near those extremes. And obviously, if the trauma just occurred, it's a whole different thing. But if the studies that show an increase in avoidant behavior from trigger warnings are right, it's increasing a bad thing. If the studies that show a 'forbidden fruit' effect are right, then it's a negative for the proposed benefit from trigger warning proponents.

But most studies show no increase or negligible increase in avoidance for the study participants, including trauma groups. So if that's the case, they aren't doing what proponents are saying is their core benefit, either.

Meanwhile quite a few show an increase in anxiety from the warning itself, which is obviously a negative.

I'm open to the idea that there might be some effective way to do trigger warnings - more specific warnings up to spoilers, or something couching it in context of how this relates to recovery and how to manage it, etc. etc. - something along those lines. There's certainly plenty of precedent for a general idea being right and the initial implementations of it being bad. But proving that is going to come down to someone figuring it out and getting studies that show positive impact.

[red_admiral]

Before we had Trigger Warnings as a term, we had movie and game ratings that said what you'd see if you watched/played: violence, blood/gore, nudity ... steam still does this, and as long as you don't use the politically charged TW expression, no-one seems to mind. For example, "Skyrim contains Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Sexual Themes, Use of Alcohol, and Language."

"TW 1.0" as I remember it - the first time I heard the TW term - was a thing where professors told students in advance if a lecture contained material that could upset some students, I think it started when someone teaching a course on criminal law in a law degree told students in advance "[TW:] next week we will have the lecture on the law around rape and sexual assault". Properly practiced, that's not exposure therapy that's being polite to your students (though why not put your whole syllabus up at the start of term, if you can?) It was also not intended to let you skip that topic - it's pretty important to know about if you're training in criminal law! - just to let you know in advance when it's coming up.

If you're teaching a course on the history of the British Empire in India, you're at some point going to need to cover the Bengal famine, the Amritsar massacre, the mutiny (aka. first war of independence), the practically-a-civil-war during partition, and a lot of other things. Mind you a "content note: British Empire" at the start of the course would probably cover all bases.

The choice of "trigger" that already means something in therapy was perhaps unfortunate, and nowadays I think "content warning" or even "content note" is preferred.

The real problem though was how students, who were neither trained therapists nor seemed to have consulted any, redefined and enforced their version of TW to the point that the term got tainted in the public view.

Basically, if you have anything like PTSD, you need an actual therapist not the collective hivemind of twitter (instagram these days?).

[cthalupa]

Generally agree with basically everything you wrote.

For me it's not even really political - I certainly am not aligned with the "heterodox" community that has been so actively against them. I think if people want to put trigger warnings on things, they should be able to make that choice, and people should be able to abide by them if they think they want to as well.

The issue is how it is framed as being important for helping people heal, like several people have spoken of it being important for in this thread. And I don't think the game/movie ratings ever really purported to be a part of that - indeed, it's always been more of an age appropriateness thing from my understanding.

If all of this was just "People should be able to make informed choices about the content they consume" and no one on any side was making claims about the mental health benefits for people with PTSD or similar, I think it would be a nonissue.

> Basically, if you have anything like PTSD, you need an actual therapist not the collective hivemind of twitter (instagram these days?).

100%. Far far far more likely to get through it and overcome the trauma with a good professional guiding you through the process. Social media is just going to have you doing silly things like writing gr@pe or gr*pe as if somehow using a euphemism that you already map back to the original word is helping and it wasn't originally just trying to get around content filters.

[p-t]

This is why I generally prefer CW/Content warning; it is basically saying "this is what this contains", instead of putting any implications of it being triggering. So CW: suicide, for example, is just for anyone who doesn't really want to read about suicide at the moment, whether it's because they want a more upbeat story or somebody they knew just died

[retsibsi]

"it does suggest that avoiding your triggers [...] provides no benefit"

This is the part I'm sceptical of. When I look this up, I mostly find articles like https://theconversation.com/proceed-with-caution-the-trouble... (and the underlying studies), which mainly address the question of whether reading a trigger warning and then consuming the potentially triggering content is better than just consuming the potentially triggering content without a warning.

(The article also mentions a finding that trigger warnings have "no meaningful effect on an individual's [...] avoidance of this content"; but I think that's entirely compatible with a world where most people consume the content regardless of the warning, some are more drawn to it because of the warning, and some (including the few who are truly vulnerable) avoid it because of the warning. The effect on those vulnerable few is what's most relevant here. The article does briefly mention "unhealthy avoidance behaviours", but in the context of one university's opinion and without supporting evidence.)

What's the best evidence against trigger warnings as a means of enabling traumatised people to make an informed decision on when (and whether) to confront their triggers?

[cthalupa]

> The article does briefly mention "unhealthy avoidance behaviours", but in the context of one university's opinion and without supporting evidence.)

There's not much additional context here because avoidant behavior is basically universally understood to be a bad thing when it comes to the long term treatment of PTSD (this is separate from immediately/short-term after the event - different situation there) - there's no real serious argument against this idea, so when avoidant behavior is discussed it doesn't require context on why that behavior is a bad thing, in the same way that a an article targeted at cardiologists isn't going to explain why poor ejection fraction is an issue - it's baseline knowledge for the target audience.

The results are mixed on whether it encourages avoidance - some studies like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221... indicate that it does, others found no effect or negligible increases.

To be clear, I'm not definitively stating it causes avoidant behavior - I am saying that it might, which would be one of those 'worst case' scenarios.

Trauma groups have been part of the meta-analysis that indicate no real change in avoidance, and some have had the 'forbidden fruit' impact even in trauma groups, but it's in similar quantities as the ones that show an increase in avoidant behavior.

Fundamentally, trigger warnings just don't make a lot of sense to try and argue in favor of from a 'helping people with their PTSD' standpoint if you believe the science.

1) For them to have the effect you claim is desirable, they would need to avoid the content - but avoidant behavior is a negative when it comes to overcoming PTSD

2) The science largely indicates that it doesn't cause them to change their behavior at all in this manner - so the desired effect, it doesn't seem to do anything.

3) There's some evidence that it might increase avoidant behavior (science would call this bad!) and some evidence it might increase people exposure due to the 'forbidden fruit' effect (which would be bad from the supposed desired effect, and not necessarily good from the scientific standpoint - unnaturally being pushed towards something might also be negative vs. more 'natural' exposure, particularly when coupled with the upcoming point)

4) A variety of studies have shown that they increase anticipatory anxiety in people when they appear, which is of course a negative for anyone. I haven't been able to find any studies particularly engaging on this specific topic of anticipatory anxiety from trigger warnings + follow up exposure from the 'forbidden fruit' effect so this isn't something backed by science like the rest, but my gut instinct is that it would be more likely to be negative vs. something more organic. I could very well be wrong there.

I don't see any combination of piecing together these studies that could lead to a belief that trigger warnings provide value from a therapeutic standpoint.

[retsibsi]

Can you point me to some strong evidence that it's reliably counterproductive to avoid reading a book or watching a show that contains a trigger? I get that avoidance, in the sense of trying to push away all thoughts of the trauma and avoid all possible reminders, is generally considered counterproductive. And exposure, at the right times and in the right ways, can be very helpful (or absolutely necessary). But there's a big difference between those facts and the idea that it's bad for a PTSD sufferer to have the option of sometimes deciding not to actively expose themselves to triggering media.

[watwut]

> At best they don't seem to actually do anything, and at worst, they actively impede your ability to get better.

No, trigger warnings do not actively impede your ability to get better. That argument rests on random trigger being framed as "exposure therapy like" event. The exposure therapy is not done by random unprepared exposure to the triggering material with no follow up. Nor by random exposure in public setting.

[cthalupa]

Except we have some studies that show they lead to and reinforce avoidant behavior, e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221...

Some also showed no evidence of this, but avoidant behavior is pretty much universally considered to be a specific maladaptive behavior when it comes to treating PTSD in the long run. It has nothing to do with the idea that it is the same as exposure therapy.

[userbinator]

Teaching people to not let emotions get to them, and offending them to build up that immunity, used to be a normal part of life. I wonder what happened.

[devmor]

People gained more exposure to eachother and realized it was kind to warn eachother of things that might bother them a lot.

There’s quite a difference between the popularized image of what trigger warnings are and the common sense use-cases like “this media contains depictions of graphic sexual assault that some viewers may find disturbing”.

[mrexroad]

trigger warnings are not there to prevent people from being "offended" or to avoid emotions they may "get to them." trigger warnings are so folks who have experienced traumatic events can avoid having a panic response triggered unexpectedly.

traumatic events are not a normal part of life and fortunately most people are never forced to experience something truly traumatic. Uncontrolled exposure does not build up "immunity" or help individuals work through or process the trauma. if the warnings seem unnecessary to you, then they're probably not for you.

[cthalupa]

Trigger warnings have been quite heavily researched at this point and at best they seem to have no positive impact to overcoming traumatic events and a some of the studies have shown them to be a negative.

Put 'scientific support for trigger warnings' in your favorite search engine and you'll find meta-analysis, RCTs, other types of studies, reviews, as well as discussions from the APS, other psychology and psychiatry related publications, etc.

This isn't to say removing trigger warnings is a replacement for actual guided therapy, exposure therapy or otherwise, but it doesn't seem like it would be a negative outcome for long term mental health and would be a benefit for anticipatory distress and potentially in combating avoidant behaviors (though not all studies universally found them to increase avoidant behaviors - just some)

This is a separate question than when it comes to general polite society and social expectations and what is and isn't considered a courtesy. The studies also aren't dealing with people that have just gone through the traumatic experience, so you could make a reasonable argument that exposure to something still fresh could have a very different impact.

[UncleMeat]

The purpose is not to help people overcome traumatic events. The purpose is to be kind to people. "Hey you are going to have a shitty day but it'll help you deal with your trauma" is not something that a professor should be unilaterally deciding.

[hananova]

All those papers look at the difference between "consuming content without being given a trigger warning" and "consuming content after being given a trigger warning."

There has been no proper research on the effectiveness of "being given a trigger warning, and then not consuming the content because of it." Which seems to be the most important factor to consider when it's about avoid sudden panic responses.

[GoblinSlayer]

>trigger warnings are not there to prevent people from being "offended" or to avoid emotions they may "get to them."

I think they are. Normal people can't stand emotions, these warnings keep them comfortable.

[watwut]

I mean ... when exactly? Dueling was all about "you said a thing that makes me uncomfortable, so I have to at least pretend to want to kill you". Domestic violence used to be defended with variants of "he felt bad". When you look at history, people overreacted in all kinds of ways at all kind of small impulses. The only difference is that the impulses were slightly different.

[bawolff]

I think its reasonable to know what you are getting into before you buy.

E.g. if i'm planning family movie night, i probably don't want an R movie. There is nothing wrong with R movies its just sometimes not what I'm looking for. Its nice to be able to see at a glance if the product is what i am looking for. Its really not that different than labelling something as sci-fi or rom-com, etc.

[jack1243star]

Trigger warnings are not there for some scientific effect. I view them as courtesy for consumers to have an chance to opt out of possibly unwanted experiences beforehand.

[imtringued]

"Unwanted experiences" does a lot of heavy lifting here.

It's like preferring strawberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream.

[cthalupa]

I think that's a reasonable argument.

A whole lot of people do make the argument that they are beneficial from a mental health perspective, though, and that's what isn't backed by the science. You can see discussion of it in-thread, even.

[retsibsi]

I've seen evidence that reading a trigger warning and then consuming the content might be worse than just consuming the content without a trigger warning.

But is there any good reason to doubt that trigger warnings can be helpful in the obvious way: someone sees the trigger warning and makes an informed decision to avoid the content?

[hananova]

The nature of that setup makes it incredibly difficult to research. You'd have to answer a negative.

Of course, that won't stop people that are anti-trigger warnings from using the irrelevant research (they don't work if you don't heed them... duh) to push their agenda.

[r-w]

Please elaborate.

[mrexroad]

can you please cite some sources for your claims?

[senkora]

The poems are pretty good too.