Trigger Warnings.

Post Reply New Topic

Now I'd imagine that majority of you don't want to be treated like children right? So why the trigger warnings on the news articles? I almost considered not signing up as the first thing I see is trigger warnings. To me that says that the people in the forum can't take different opinions and struggle to control their own feelings.

It's not about our not being able to take differing opinions----it is about the information contained in the articles, IMO, because most of us, ASDers, are super-sensitive to when others hurt, for instance, and that our emotions can overwhelm us and cause a meltdown or shutdown (and, in MY case, and others, a seizure).

We DO struggle to control our feelings, sometimes----but, that's not always a fault, as you seem to be insinuating; it could just be, for instance, that a person has had a super emotionally-draining day, and reading an article could be the last straw. Surely, you're not ALWAYS without "breakdowns", of any type----even NTs have them.

I consider when someone puts a trigger warning on a post, that they're showing empathy----and, because we're so-often accused of NOT having empathy, I think it's GREAT!!

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but you're only 16-years-old----a minority, by FAR, on this site----and, if you had the worries of bills, a spouse (or, SO), children, etc., that alot of our members have, maybe you would be able to better understand why someone could "struggle to control their own feelings" (because we have so many emotions / feelings, to juggle).

/\yes,so very true.Sometimes the images in the articles that are the worst.There are some photos that are burned in my mind that I wish I could I see.One I saw years ago was a starving child with a buzzard waiting for the child to die.I wish I'd never seen it,now it's with me forever.From what I remember the journalist that took the photo committed suicide later.I guess he couldn't get it out of his head either,and to see it in RL.Oh God.

"Trigger Warnings" "safe spaces" etc are legitimate useful concepts that have been so badly abused just the expressions bring revulsion in many people including myself. The first thought is of super fragile, language policing, spoiled brats.

Avoiding "triggers" have been a mainstay of treatment for addicts for as long as I can remember. If you are an alcoholic going to a bar it is probably a bad idea because of the many triggers. "Trigger Warnings" was an idea to have other people help people avoid triggers. "Safe Spaces" is a particular method meant to do that. Support groups are a form of safe spaces that long predate the expression "safe spaces". After the Vietnam War, PTSD became recognized and avoiding triggers was applied to PTSD sufferers. It became recognized that other people besides war veterans suffer from PTSD. It is starting to be recognized that many autistics suffer from PTSD due to years of abuse and people forcibly trying to change their basic nature. So what Alex with his rules of what can not be discussed and users who put a trigger warnings are trying to do is avoid setting people back psychologically and traumatizing them by creating a safe space of sorts.

While the concepts are good, abusing them is counterproductive. "Trigger Warnings" should be a temporary step in recovery and safe spaces should be a part time activity, not the permanent lifestyle they have become on many campuses and in today's "everybody gets a trophy" culture. Life is a series of potential and real triggers after all. Autistics often have addictive, obsessive personalities and avoidance issues. Overuse of trigger warnings and safe spaces lead to fear of doing anything even with a slight risk of discomfort. Lack of experience with offensive and negative feedback creates a situation where it will take less and less to create a traumatic experience for the person addicted to avoiding triggers.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 06 Dec 2016, 2:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This.
Trigger warnings were designed to give people with PTSD a heads-up that the material presented might trigger a flashback, a panic attack, or other severe reaction. They are intended for media depicting rape, domestic violence, war, and other violent or traumatic events.
College students claiming to be triggered every time they hear an idea that's unpleasant is a slap in the face to people who actually understand and have experienced the real meaning of "triggered".
Btw, I'm equally offended at people who accuse others of being "triggered" as a way of saying they're wimps.

Trigger warnings are good in theory but ultimately unworkable. The number of triggers is equal if not greater than the number of those triggered. The onus is on the traumatized person to be able to face triggers and cope successfully with them.

I am not seeing any trigger warnings anywhere on this site, so wasn't aware that was really a widespread thing on this here. That said though I believe the purpose is to let people know if there is particularly disturbing/graphic content so a person who isn't up for that kind of thing can choose not to look at it...at least that is how to use them appropriately.

If one wants trigger warnings for opinions they disagree with, then they are asking too much. Then everyone would have to determine what that persons opinions are to create special trigger warnings whenever they post something that person disagrees with....which would be ridiculous.

Yes but a traumatized person should be able to choose if they want to see triggering content or not if there is such an option. You don't learn to face and cope with triggers by recklessly exposing yourself to as much triggering material as you can..you have to take it in bits and pieces and work through it and even then you're probably still going to have some days with aggravated sensitivity where you may be better sticking with lighthearted and comforting stuff than delving into graphic news reports on a recent shooting for instance.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 06 Dec 2016, 3:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yeah, but life has a way of smacking you in the face when you try to avoid things. Maybe it's just me.

In theory, but, at least in Australia it's being, a tad, overused.
And if you use trigger warnings for *everything*, then you may as well not use them.

Oh that is true, sort of happened to me the other day when I decided to look and see what was going on at a bus stop with a ton of police and that yellow tape they use to block off areas...there was what appeared to be a body and lots of blood I kind of wished I hadn't looked but kind of hard not to when its a bus stop around where you live that you've certainly used before.

But I don't know I kind of feel like having control over exposure some of the time can help when there is no warning, I mean I feel I would have been much worse off if I had spent the day dealing with trigger after trigger and never limited exposure to things that remind me of traumatic stuff.

That would upset me. I go lightheaded in situations like that. I once passed out at a veterinarian's office because my cat was ill.

I did get rather lightheaded and some nausea that killed my appetite for the day, but luckily I didn't pass out...might have freaked out my boyfriend who was driving at the time.

There's no way to know what triggers what in which person. A "Graphic Image Warning" might be more appropriate for images or video that the average person would probably consider excessively gross or disturbing. We've actually had people in the PPR forum (and maybe the news forum) claim that the opinions (usually of their enemies) that oppose their opinions sets off "triggers". Really, if someone is that sensitive they should avoid forums that are known to be trigger heavy.

...On a certain level , Cat , it seems odd yo-u'd say this - if only because , in the general " Which posse do you claim ? " ideological game , supporting trigger warnings is often seen as " nanny state liberal " , say , by Fox News/whatever types describing themselves as conservative And I thi0ink i0t's fair to say that you seem to tend conservatie , in general .
Of course , no one equally partakes of EVERY dish in the " cafeteria of ideology " (Hoo boy ! !!) !...

Well, as much as I probably shouldn't admit it, I think it was more about WHO said it----as opposed to WHAT they said. I don't take kindly to someone, who in their very first post, seems to be putting us down----ESPECIALLY, not a CHILD (and, not a child like Ezra, who is going-on 32); so, I can become quite a lioness, when wanting to protect "my people".

You're right, I DON'T "partake of every dish in the cafeteria"----for instance, the conservative in me thinks that these "safe places" in colleges, is almost the biggest bunch of horse-hockey I've ever heard-of, in my entire LIFE!!