[TazeTSchnitzel]

Trigger warnings aren't censorship, they're a renamed content warning. People might voluntarily avoid consuming works labelled with warnings in some cases, but that's it.

Safe spaces are not fundamentally different to ordinary social spaces with rules. Was the introduction of anti-bullying efforts in schools some alarming new dawn for censorship?

[dragonwriter]

Trigger warnings are fundamentally misguided; actual triggers for people with a past history of trauma are often not yhe type of things that get trigged warnings; the things that get trigger warnings are just things that are likely to be sensitive independent of such history, because "trigger" has been the subject of appropriation by people who want society to cater to their political sensitivity week found that mere "offense" want powerful enough.

Some people might be triggered by them, but real triggered are as likely to be, say, a scent that has become associated with the traumatic event because it was present at the time. "Trigger warnings" are based on a kind of intellectual association which had little relation to his actual triggering works but a lot to do with his run out the mill offense works.

Real triggering can only meaningfully be addressed with sensitivity to actual individual triggers, and any meaningful eastbound and agree disagree would be highly lesson-specific. The modern phenomenon of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" if just privileging a certain set of political sensitivities and aesthetic preferences, not addressing actual safety from trauma triggers.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

> Trigger warnings are fundamentally misguided; actual triggers for people with a past history of trauma are often not yhe type of things that get trigged warnings

It really depends on the person. Some people who've had the misfortune of experiencing rape definitely do get flashbacks when rape is described to them, for example. This isn't a hypothetical thing: someone I know had this happen.

> The modern phenomenon of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" if just privileging a certain set of political sensitivities and aesthetic preferences, not addressing actual safety from trauma triggers.

Whether or not trigger warnings help with trauma, they are mostly harmless. I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution here, given that most of the people with the biggest problem with trigger warnings tend to be people who wouldn't need them anyway.

Safe spaces don't just exist to avoid trauma, and the reason they exist isn't political. They exist to allow people excluded by mainstream spaces to participate. For example, rape survivors may find it difficult to participate in spaces where people make "jokes" about rape, for fairly obvious reasons.

[cactusface]

I think you're underestimating the effects of content warnings. As an example, studios routinely alter films so as to achieve more favorable ratings from the MPAA.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Rating systems have teeth, yes. But the "some viewers may find the following images disturbing"-type warnings, to which trigger warnings are equivalent, don't have teeth. They're voluntary guidance. Think also of epilepsy warnings.

[cactusface]

I think plenty of people would alter their content to avoid warnings, regardless of context. But, I only have data for the MPAA and also maybe recordings with explicit lyrics. I don't necessarily think warnings are bad, I just think that in general, if you're going to label people's work in a negative way, some people would rather change their work so that it doesn't get labelled like that. I mean, I try to be polite on HN so that it doesn't get downvoted and greyed out, but this isn't really that bad of a thing.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

I can see where you're coming from. Removing content because you'd have to warn viewers about it makes sense, I suppose.

Though trigger warnings don't mean the work is "bad", just it might cause problems for a small fraction of viewers.

[cactusface]

Yeah, I think we basically agree. I was just nitpicking.