Jump to content

Use of the term "Triggered"


Pecan

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

That is the entire point of what I was trying to say.  It not enough to be "trigged" good for you we can all have a parade.  Its acknowledging that trigger and moving forward that is important.  PTSD used to mean treatment for people who survived a really traumatic War or some other sort of disaster.  That is real.  "Triggered" has morphed into this awful thing that are more likely to see being used by self righteous people on the internet or people in real life that are equally self righteous.    

Trigger Warning or tiggered could mean a video you don't want to watch or an article you don't read.  Not exactly on the same level as a guy who lost his entire family in a care accident. 

Now since you have demonstrated that you aren't going to give me the time of day meaning I guess that your POV is valid and mine is not at least give this article a shot it more or less sums up what I mean. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive

Are you kidding?  I have given you the time of day.  I've now taken time out of my day to respond to you THREE times.  Jeez.

It's not your business to decide what trauma is worthy and what isn't.  Again, it's the reason people don't receive care.  I've known many rape survivors who put off care and got worse because they thought their trauma wasn't worthy since it wasn't the same as someone losing their entire family or someone getting their foot blown off.  I've known all sorts of people who have experienced various sorts of trauma who thought the same way.

Again, you're not a special snowflake.  You aren't alone in your experiences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think ceding the venue to the unethical qualifies as a good conflict resolution mechanism.

Ceding what venue? Can you give any examples of where this would be a problem?

40 minutes ago, Altherion said:

the person who has been forced to relocate will feel aggrieved which, in the long term, helps lead to very amusing surprises for the "triggered" and their censorial allies.

"Very amusing"? You do realise that unless you have some way to tell who has PTSD and who doesn't, in which case the point is moot, you're talking mostly about rape survivors etc as the victims of these "surprises"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

PTSD used to mean treatment for people who survived a really traumatic War or some other sort of disaster.  That is real.

That sounds an awful lot like "it's only real if it happens to men"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, felice said:

That sounds an awful lot like "it's only real if it happens to men"...

That kind of sums up the world. :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Are you kidding?  I have given you the time of day.  I've now taken time out of my day to respond to you THREE times.  Jeez.

It's not your business to decide what trauma is worthy and what isn't.  Again, it's the reason people don't receive care.  I've known many rape survivors who put off care and got worse because they thought their trauma wasn't worthy since it wasn't the same as someone losing their entire family or someone getting their foot blown off. 

Again, you're not a special snowflake.  You aren't alone in your experiences.  

 

Thank you ever so much for taking time out of your busy day.  Its obviously so much more important then my day.  Although your point about rape survivors putting off care until it gets worse is not without merit because for years that was me. 

Its not a matter of business its a matter of logic.  If you go onto Huffington Post and read a news article you don't like and somehow in your mind you are "trigged" its not on the same level of "Triggered" as a kid in Aleppo who has lived through four years of continuous bombing and probably has genuine physiological problems.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, felice said:

Ceding what venue? Can you give any examples of where this would be a problem?

Whichever venue they were in when the "triggering" issue came up.

51 minutes ago, felice said:

"Very amusing"? You do realise that unless you have some way to tell who has PTSD and who doesn't, in which case the point is moot, you're talking mostly about rape survivors etc as the victims of these "surprises"?

I do not know what fraction of people using the term at this point are serious about it and what fraction is either using it for trivialities or mocking the latter group. Survivors of trauma are indeed worse off because of the misuse; that was part of my point. As long as the usage remained limited to narrow, well-defined issues, it was possible for most people to agree on some topics which could be dropped without anyone feeling censored. However, the expanded definition (see the long list of practically random topics in the Guardian article) results in the erosion of respect for the norm as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

Thank you ever so much for taking time out of your busy day.  Its obviously so much more important then my day.  Although your point about rape survivors putting off care until it gets worse is not without merit because for years that was me. 

Its not a matter of business its a matter of logic.  If you go onto Huffington Post and read a news article you don't like and somehow in your mind you are "trigged" its not on the same level of "Triggered" as a kid in Aleppo who has lived through four years of continuous bombing and probably has genuine physiological problems.  

In paragraph one you acknowledge that the point you make in paragraph two is harmful to people who have suffered trauma.

Again, it's not for you to decide how people are allowed to experience or process their trauma or to say that they aren't allowed because other people's traumas are worse.  It's not for you to decide what things can be triggering for them or what things are appropriate to be called a trigger.  As someone mentioned above, a fucking stick of butter can be a significant trigger.  Maybe reading an article on HuffPo seems like no big deal to you, but you have no fucking idea why it would be distressing to someone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

In paragraph one you acknowledge that the point you make in paragraph two is harmful to people who have suffered trauma.

Again, it's not for you to decide how people are allowed to experience or process their trauma or to say that they aren't allowed because other people's traumas are worse.  It's not for you to decide what things can be triggering for them or what things are appropriate to be called a trigger.  As someone mentioned above, a fucking stick of butter can be a significant trigger.  Maybe reading an article on HuffPo seems like no big deal to you, but you have no fucking idea why it would be distressing to someone else.  

 

Oh Jesus,  I'm just going to highlight the part that made my jaw drop.  I would rather be dead if I had to spend the rest of the my life worrying if everything I might say COULD be someone's potential trigger.  I mean that could be anything.  We would have to be telepathic for this idea to work.  Have you ever heard the term First world problems? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

Oh Jesus,  I'm just going to highlight the part that made my jaw drop.  I would rather be dead if I had to spend the rest of the my life worrying if everything I might say COULD be someone's potential trigger.  I mean that could be anything.  We would have to be telepathic for this idea to work.  Have you ever heard the term First world problems? 

Why is your jaw dropped?  Someone who has lived in a war zone might see someone else pick up a stick of butter in a certain way that might look like they are picking up, say, a grenade, might make that stick of butter trigger them.  I've spent a significant amount of time with rape survivors and you can probably easily figure out why a stick of butter might trigger some.  These are merely examples.  Triggers and trauma are often not at all rational so sometimes people can't even explain why the stick of butter upsets or distresses them.  

Of course I know what first world problems are.  That doesn't apply to trauma or triggers because everyone of every class and gender and of countries from all developments can experience these things.  Again, you need to fuck off with your  bullshit about how there's only one type of trauma and only certain ways people can experience distress or upset about it.  

I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to  worrying about saying something that could trigger someone.  No one (but you) has said anything about being on constant guard about what you say for fear of triggering someone.  It's about being respectful when a person says something has triggered them or being aware of what groups you are around during certain topics.  For example, I might discuss child abuse with X group and I know the topic is sensitive and not one that many might feel comfortable with.  So I give a 'fair warning' description before discussing.  If someone says it triggers them, I respect that and either move on until they aren't around or make other arrangements to discuss it with the group.  Those arrangements might be allowing the person to walk away for a bit or talking about it at a different time when the other person isn't there.

Or, you know, someone says that stick of butter on my talbe is really upstting them so I ask if I can serve the butter a different way or offer to remove it entirely.

It doesn't take great effort to be respectful.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It doesn't take great effort to be respectful.  It takes significant effort to be a fucking prick.  

 

As you have consistently demonstrated.  And in all of our discussions here I don't believe I ever used profanity with you.  I have a strong suspicion that you a Capricorn.  Its not that you are wrong because in fairness you probably aren't as far as the analogy goes its that you are so hellbent on bulldozing everyone with a contrary opinion who is actually more on your side then you would give him credit for.  Your point that I am taking it upon myself to determine which level of trauma is more serious is correct but I would counter with this question who died and made you an expert on all triggers everywhere or Trauma or PTSD and so on?  I have given you my thoughts as they work for me and you have no problem giving me your thoughts.  It doesn't make one set of opinions more valid then the other it makes them different. 

And I will take your advice and "fuck off" its probably better for the old blood pressure anyway.  See you on any thread not this one.  Its my stupid fault for coming into this thread I know perfectly well the concept pisses me off.

I don't know if I could a list of my "triggers" wouldn't be a long list

1.  People who use the word "trigger"

2.  People (when discussing Huckleberry Finn) say the word N-Word Jim when that isn't the name of the character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crazydog7 said:

Not necessarily do you know a war where only men get hurt by the bullets and bombs?  

No, on the contrary it tends to be the non-combatants who suffer most in a lot of conflicts. But in the western world, most of our direct exposure to people affected by war (and certainly the most media attention) is about soldiers returning home from foreign wars.

Refugees also probably suffer from high rates of PTSD, but there tends to be more arguing over whether or not they're terrorists who want to steal our jobs and sponge off welfare than concern over what they've been through.

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Whichever venue they were in when the "triggering" issue came up.

I think we've established that it's not an issue in this venue. You're the one who's claiming there's a problem - in what venues does it happen?

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No one (but you) has said anything about being on constant guard about what you say for fear of triggering someone.  It's about being respectful when a person says something has triggered them or being aware of what groups you are around during certain topics.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the venues mentioned by the OP - reddit, twitch and youtube - I think its pretty safe to assume (especially due to twitch) that the usage of "triggered" being seen here is of the "gamers mocking anything that isnt part of their life experience as precious snowflake SJW" variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on this subject go in several directions.

One is the general inflation of language.  A forest fire is now a wild fire, a headache becomes a migraine, a cold snap becomes a polar vortex, etc.  Louis CK does a bit about indiscriminate use of the word 'hilarious' and to me it is all of a piece. 

Another direction is to connect 'triggering' with the older expression 'pushing buttons.'  You see it a lot in couples who know each other intimately and know each other's fears.  When they fight they push each other's buttons, they trigger a response knowingly because they are mad.

Here we are talking more about people who push your buttons unknowingly and whether we should be sensitive to unknown triggers.

Another direction is the "Me too" defense.  If one person (very reasonably) claims that they are unable to perform in the expected way because of something outside their control, and it works, others will inevitably claim 'me too.'  If that is an acceptable excuse then that is also my excuse.

I have often thought that I feel sorry for people with genuine back pain because so many people claim back pain that all sufferers are held in skepticism. 

We don't have any way of parsing the victim from the charlatan.  On one hand, we would never want to cause someone anguish because of ignorance.  On the other hand, we don't want to be chumps who grant special privileges to the unworthy. 

I know my own triggers but I am not yet mature enough to disregard them or acknowledge in the moment that I am having an unreasonable response because of my past experience.  I can only see it in hindsight.  I don't have anything remotely worthy of being called PTSD but I have my triggers.

So the central question becomes whether we, as a society, should adopt guidelines to avoid accidental triggers and whether accidental triggering should be an acceptable excuse.  For myself, I believe that the burden is on me to swallow accidental triggers and behave well despite provocation.  I would not necessarily hold anyone else to that standard.

Still, I am just as helpless as anyone else.  I want to be respectful but I don't want to be a chump.  How the hell should I know which is which?  All I can do is make my best judgement call and hope I am not an ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

I do not know what fraction of people using the term at this point are serious about it and what fraction is either using it for trivialities or mocking the latter group.

And yet despite professing ignorance, you feel happy to offer your opinion anyway?

3 hours ago, litechick said:

One is the general inflation of language.  A forest fire is now a wild fire, a headache becomes a migraine, a cold snap becomes a polar vortex, etc.  Louis CK does a bit about indiscriminate use of the word 'hilarious' and to me it is all of a piece.

Yeah, this is a well-known phenomenon of language and has been forever. That's how the meaning of words morphs over time, how the worst blasphemies become mild expressions of alarm, and so on.

The real issue here isn't words. The real issue is about not mistaking your right to free speech as a free pass to ignore other people's issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

And yet despite professing ignorance, you feel happy to offer your opinion anyway?

Yeah, this is a well-known phenomenon of language and has been forever. That's how the meaning of words morphs over time, how the worst blasphemies become mild expressions of alarm, and so on.

The real issue here isn't words. The real issue is about not mistaking your right to free speech as a free pass to ignore other people's issues.

How about you can ignore others' issues if you want, because the world doesn't owe anyone anything. So as long as you are staying within the arbitrarily imposed constraints of whichever forum you happen to be engaging in, you can say what the hell you want. And if it "triggers" Person X or Y, well that's their problem. They are free to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, mormont said:

The real issue here isn't words. The real issue is about not mistaking your right to free speech as a free pass to ignore other people's issues.

I think this is wrong, mormont. In fact, you and I have the complete free pass to ignore other people’s issues. Morally and legally. And psychologically.

There is simply no system of ethics I have ever seen that gives me even the slightest obligation to take other people’s issues seriously. Mind you, I can, if I want to. And for some people in my immediate private sphere I am supposed to. Possibly my job gives me other, contractual obligations. But by and large you and I can only function because we routinely ignore other people’s issues on a massive scale. And this is fine; as I said, I’ve never even seen a serious attempt to construct a system of ethics (religion, law, civic rights, social codes) that claims anything else.

Society (or individuals) cannot function unless they routinely ignore other people’s issues. (*)

On the other hand, free speech is utterly fundamental and enshrined in law. It is very, very important. Liberal democracies cannot function without. 

On a 1 to 10 scale of importance, the blanket obligation to take other people’s issues seriously is at 1. Free speech is at 10. I’m willing to see somebody try to argue that the blanket obligation to take other people’s issues seriously should be a 2 (**). I think I would disagree (because I think the obligation does not even exist, never mind having very low importance), but I’m willing to entertain the idea.

But to signal that these to things are somehow symmetric strikes me as wrong.

(*) “issues” is an operatively significant word here. It is not to be confused with “rights”. In fact, I you write “rights” instead of “issues”, the claim becomes false.

(**) There is something to be said for polite, Victorian rules of behaviour, in order to make society function in a nonthreatening way. Politeness is a staple of conservative social attitudes, and I am inclined to reject it, but Pinker has a good chapter on that in Better Angles… that I thought was very good and made me view these issues differently. So maybe 2 is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt have associated the word "trigger" with any of the scenarios posters have brought up in this thread. When I read or hear the word trigger my mind usually first associates that with sports contracts. Examples being expressions like "triggers the luxury tax" or "triggers a performance bonus". It is used in other sports commentary, "he pulls the trigger" (shooting in basketball) . Ive also heard it used in baseball for when a manager pulls his starting pitcher or "He pulls the trigger on Verlander", for example. So for at least some of us, the word has a much different association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trigger is not about anything that causes an emotional response. Most people do not understand that. It's not like hey that makes me remember something I don't want to and feel bad. It's hey, I'm having a PTSD related anxiety attack. We all know the example of veterans with fireworks. It's not that fireworks simply remind them of mortars- it's that fireworks make them have a fucking panic attack. That happens with other things to other people, too, and it takes something that really really damaged a person to give them that trauma. So, let's all try to be compassionate because I think any person with a modicum of kindness would rather humor someone being dramatic than contribute to a traumatized person feeling unsafe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

How about you can ignore others' issues if you want, because the world doesn't owe anyone anything.

'The world' doesn't. But you, if you want to be considered a decent person, do owe people a basic level of politeness, which includes approaching potentially sensitive topics in an adult way, respectful of others' feelings. If you conduct yourself the way you're suggesting, don't be surprised if people get upset with you. And when they do, please don't complain about it or whine about how unreasonable it is that you can't behave like an ass without being criticised for it.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So as long as you are staying within the arbitrarily imposed constraints of whichever forum you happen to be engaging in, you can say what the hell you want. And if it "triggers" Person X or Y, well that's their problem. They are free to leave.

They're also free to ask you to leave, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...