If these repugnant special interest groups had their way there would be "trigger warnings" on television and films and whatever else could be "potentially offensive."

I found that opinion potentially offensive. Please use trigger warnings next time, you *cis heteropatriarch.

Sorry, next time I'll check my privilege.

What the bloody hell is a "trigger warning"? I've never heard of that.

Sorry, next time I'll check my privilege.

 

MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO!

 

Wait... f*ck... you're Mex-, no, wait, Hisp-, no, not allowed to say that anymore, Lati-n-, I mean, f*ck, oh God, oh God, I think I'm having a heart attack, breath, breath, what is it? Urban demographic? Unidentified male suspect? Is that the word now? Either way, I apologise for ever questioning anything you ever did. You understand? Soh-ree. LOW SEE-EN-TOE HER-MARNO, EN-TEN-DER?

 

Good, all in all, I think that counts as my "token involvement with a minority" for the day. Back to being smug and judgmental whenever I'm in the majority, and whining and over-emotional whenever I'm the minority on Tumblr.

 

What the bloody hell is a "trigger warning"? I've never heard of that.

 

That's because you're a straight man, and, thus, a rapist.

 

It's a phrase the worst kind of modern liberal-facsist uses to sugar-coat and indirectly glorify any topic they might find personally upsetting because the entire world revolves around them and whether or not they're offended by things, maaaaaaaaaaaan. It's basically a way of sugar coating and censoring the entire universe from things you don't feel like hearing. It's the kind of people who want the word "nigger" written out of Huckleberry Finn, despite that missing the point and making it a thousand times more racist. It's really gross self-centred, censoring, fake-liberal, thought policing. It's actually basically just the song California Uber Alles by Dead Kennedys.

Edited May 26, 201410 yr by John Hancock

What the bloody hell is a "trigger warning"? I've never heard of that.

 

Used to alert people when an internet post, book, article, picture, video, audio clip, or some other media could potentially cause extremely negative reactions (such as post-traumatic flashbacks or self-harm) due to its content. Sometimes abbreviated as "TW."

 

There you go.

 

 

MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO!

 

Wait... f*ck... you're Mex-, no, wait, Hisp-, no, not allowed to say that anymore, Lati-n-, I mean, f*ck, oh God, oh God, I think I'm having a heart attack, breath, breath, what is it? Urban demographic? Unidentified male suspect? Is that the word now? Either way, I apologise for ever questioning anything you ever did. You understand? Soh-ree. LOW SEE-EN-TOE HER-MARNO, EN-TEN-DER?

 

Good, all in all, I think that counts as my "token involvement with a minority" for the day. Back to being smug and judgmental whenever I'm in the majority, and whining and over-emotional whenever I'm the minority on Tumblr.

 

F*ck off back to tumblr! :lol

Tumblr is all up in this right now.

 

#NotAllPosters

Of course the whole "trigger warning" trend is unhelpful. It's teaching all these people that it's okay to make your peers step on eggshells so you don't get upset. IT's teaching these people that the world does indeed revolve around them and most importantly it's teaching them that it's okay to keep running from X, Y or Z instead of facing the real problem.

 

TW: Soggy Bread.

I have no idea what soggy bread means, but I 100% agree with everything else you said.

 

[video=youtube;V-6wxL7gGBQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-6wxL7gGBQ

 

"Big brother on a white horse". Oh Dead Kennedys, why are you always right?

Jello Biafra is a prophet.

Is it censorship? I always thought they were warnings of what the content will be (such as the "strobe lighting effect" warning before WWE shows on Sky or "this program will contain violent images that some people may find offensive) rather than anything actually being censored.

I think it's the specific context of the phrase "trigger warning". It's one of those "I know it when I see it" kind of deals. Content warnings are fine, but "trigger warning" as a phrase, has become associated with a very specific type of over-zealous, cozy, politically motivated warning. It's not so much a "this is pretty offensive", it's usually a "this might possibly, maybe be offensive if you're as ultra-sensative about everything as I am, and, of course you are, because everyone's like me, because I'm God". An example would be the recent movement amongst a certain type of extremely white, extremely suburban, extremely female, extremely offended on the behalf of every minority they aren't part of college student in America to get trigger warnings put on things as harmless, or as contextually important as The Great Gatsby (because it's sexist) or The Merchant of Venice (because it's anti-Semitic). Those are both 100% true examples by the way, it's that ridiculous.

Yeah those two seem pretty excessive, warnings on things that deal specifically with specific forms of violence are fine, and probably analogous to some news reports, for instance on an act of terrorism, having a "some viewers may find the following distressing" before them.

Is it censorship? I always thought they were warnings of what the content will be (such as the "strobe lighting effect" warning before WWE shows on Sky or "this program will contain violent images that some people may find offensive) rather than anything actually being censored.

 

In my limited experience, "Trigger warning" is a form of censorship on Tumblr as there are certain add-ons that eliminate certain tags from showing up on your dashboard. Such as "TW: Rape", or in one dead serious legit case, "TW: Cake". Cake is where it goes too far. Lindsay who works at Rooster Teeth/Achievement Hunter legitimately got a message asking her to tag her pictures of cakes because they triggered her.

 

Okay, in that case, I'm gonna need everyone to start tagging their posts if it contains stairwells. They "trigger" me. That's where trigger warnings go into censorship territory.

On mental health forums they are quite useful things. :)

Yeah those two seem pretty excessive, warnings on things that deal specifically with specific forms of violence are fine, and probably analogous to some news reports, for instance on an act of terrorism, having a "some viewers may find the following distressing" before them.

 

Images are more distressing than words though. You can't compare the word "rape" to video footage of an actual rape. The problem with trigger warnings is that they're so personal that they cover literally everything. Everyone is emotionally effected and emotionally provoked by things differently, it's ridiculous to try to make a moral point of policing that. It also always defeats the point. If you make specific topics bad, regardless of context, you damage the conversation. The phrase "trigger warning: racism" puts To Kill A Mockingbird in the same context as Mein Kampf, "trigger warning: rape" puts The Accused in the same context as Last House on the Left, "trigger warning: homophobia" puts Milk in the same context as I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry.

 

It's a brutal over-simplification, and it's massively self-centred. As I said, a real, honest trigger warning would involve everything. What if someone was beaten as a child with a T.V. remote? It's perfectly possible, perfectly serious subject, that could potentially be extremely traumatic. So trigger warnings on pictures of T.V. remotes? Or, maybe we have to come to terms with the fact that, every day, we run the risk of being innocently, accidentally reminded of traumatic things, and it's incredibly arrogant to demand other people change their vocabulary to protect us from our own subconscious, no matter how horrific that subconscious may be.

 

Are you willing to use trigger warnings for people offended by blasphemy? What about people who are offended by homosexuality? What about children who were abused by homosexual pedophiles who get PTSD from the pro-homosexuality memes you repost?

 

On mental health forums they are quite useful things. :)

 

Now that's fair enough, because that's a very specific context. I have no problem with it in the context of something like a rape-victim support network, these sort of places. I'm referring to the current trend of people complaining about books and films and articles for not using trigger warnings, then they're not in a context that would explicitly need them.

In my limited experience, "Trigger warning" is a form of censorship on Tumblr as there are certain add-ons that eliminate certain tags from showing up on your dashboard. Such as "TW: Rape", or in one dead serious legit case, "TW: Cake". Cake is where it goes too far. Lindsay who works at Rooster Teeth/Achievement Hunter legitimately got a message asking her to tag her pictures of cakes because they triggered her.

 

Okay, in that case, I'm gonna need everyone to start tagging their posts if it contains stairwells. They "trigger" me. That's where trigger warnings go into censorship territory.

I see.

 

That's a completely different kettle of fish... and a pretty f'n ridiculous one at that.

Edited May 26, 201410 yr by DC