Use of the term "Triggered"

[Squab]

Content warning: violent weaponry imagery and other words below.

Everyday Feminism has suggested not using the word "Trigger" as it "evokes violent weaponry imagery".  That's right, the word trigger is triggering and needs a trigger content warning.

If only we were able to completely filter words and ideas we found unbearable we could avoid having our ideas and thoughts challenged at all.

 

[Week]

28 minutes ago, Squab said:

Content warning: violent weaponry imagery and other words below.

Everyday Feminism has suggested not using the word "Trigger" as it "evokes violent weaponry imagery".  That's right, the word trigger is triggering and needs a trigger content warning.

If only we were able to completely filter words and ideas we found unbearable we could avoid having our ideas and thoughts challenged at all.

 

Once again, we see a mighty hay-maker from the right and it pulverizes the man-of-straw.

Feel free to actually debate what has been said once you've practiced on dummies enough.

[mankytoes]

10 minutes ago, Week said:

Once again, we see a mighty hay-maker from the right and it pulverizes the man-of-straw.

Feel free to actually debate what has been said once you've practiced on dummies enough.

I was going to agree with you, but I thought I should google and check first. And they're actually right...

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/guide-to-triggering/

" we use the phrase “content warning” instead of “trigger warning,” as the word “trigger” relies on and evokes violent weaponry imagery. This could be re-traumatizing for folks who have suffered military, police, and other forms of violence."

 

[Squab]

5 hours ago, Week said:

The point made is that if you trigger someone else to treat them with respect instead of disdain - no matter how legitimate you think their reaction is.

If you actually believed the above you would not have written below

16 minutes ago, Week said:

Once again, we see a mighty hay-maker from the right and it pulverizes the man-of-straw.

Feel free to actually debate what has been said once you've practiced on dummies enough.

 

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Don't see why a term should be abandoned just because another group tries to take it and make it derisive/trivial/humorous and ignore the serious aspects of it.. Don't recall specifically but isn't that what happened with SJW? 

 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I thought SJW was strictly a derogatory term used by Gamergaters, the alt-right, and lugubrious infant canines, beyond the special snowflake movement on this forum to appropriate the term for its natural rad beauty.

Helena I don't think you should even try and separate them, the rise of "triggered" in a derisive+joking way is the same story as the rise in use of SJW and everyone's favourite ethics movement. Its grown out of the gamer (and adjacent) internet communities as a way of mocking anyone that actually cares and painting them as the enemy. "Triggered" in this context is probably as pure a form of 'virtue signalling' (another term theyre using at times now) I've seen.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, zelticgar said:

I thought it might be menopause but PMS works!  

Ok, Donald Trump.  Did you get triggered by a woman disputing you?  Poor dude.

You can fuck off with trying to discredit women by referencing their reproductive organs.

2 hours ago, zelticgar said:

 

I think it is possible to have serious conversations using trigger warnings and safe spaces but it is equally reasonable that they are used in a joking matter given how saturated the terms are within our society. 

Yeah, terms can be used in a joking manner.  Happens all the time.  Doesn't mean you have to stop using terms.

 

1 hour ago, Squab said:

Content warning: violent weaponry imagery and other words below.

Everyday Feminism has suggested not using the word "Trigger" as it "evokes violent weaponry imagery".  That's right, the word trigger is triggering and needs a trigger content warning.

If only we were able to completely filter words and ideas we found unbearable we could avoid having our ideas and thoughts challenged at all.

 

How are ideas unable to be challenged just because someone provides a warning for what ideas will be discussed?  Someone pointed out spoiler warnings upthread.  Do you have problems with those?  Are books, films, and shows not able to be discussed because a bunch of threads are tagged with spoiler warnings?

As far as content vs trigger, it's their website, they can make the rules.  Aside from that, content warning is more precise in the context they are using it.  The oaf I quoted above would probably prefer it, though he might get triggered if the young women in his life start using the word and exploring the concept.  

[Squab]

50 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

How are ideas unable to be challenged just because someone provides a warning for what ideas will be discussed?  Someone pointed out spoiler warnings upthread.  Do you have problems with those?  Are books, films, and shows not able to be discussed because a bunch of threads are tagged with spoiler warnings?

As far as content vs trigger, it's their website, they can make the rules.  Aside from that, content warning is more precise in the context they are using it.  The oaf I quoted above would probably prefer it, though he might get triggered if the young women in his life start using the word and exploring the concept.  

Ideas are able to be challenged even if someone provides a warning for what ideas will be discussed. I am not suggesting they aren't. People heeding trigger warnings and avoiding ideas are welcome to a safe space where their own ideas can remain unchallenged. Do not take my point on filtering unbearable words and ideas in jest, its just not for me.

I have no problem with spoilers being said, written, posted or otherwise without any warning whatsoever. For words and ideas to adults, I find the need or insistence for a warning comical.

As far as content vs trigger, where is the line drawn between a trigger warning and a warning of something offensive? Is it an issue with PTSD specifically or is it broader? Aren't there many people who are suffering from PTSD arising from combat zones and therefore if you are going to use a warning and be honest about it, shouldn't the word "trigger" be replaced by "content"? Without taking many of the sufferers of PTSD into account, trigger warnings have an air of "virtue-signaling" as @karaddin might say.

I do not see why you should need to resort to name calling. Seems unnecessary as if ones actions are oafish then it is plain for all to see and you are only pointing out what everyone already knows. If those actions are not, then it makes your accusation false. Plus it will only serve to anger the recipient rendering them even less likely to listen to you objectively.

[karaddin]

Actually I wouldn't say "virtue signalling" other than in pointing out the bullshit hypocrisy of certain groups, because like many things its a phrase that was already meaningless when it started being used and hasn't improved from there.

Speaking generally from my own understanding of language, I'd read "trigger warning" as a warning specifically for people with PTSD but "content warning" sounds like its for everyone as a warning there will be content you may not to engage with right now. You could argue for replacing the word "trigger" if there are actual sufferers of PTSD asking for it, but I think something other than content should be that replacement to preserve the distinction. 

I personally think the dilution of "triggered" by using it in a non-mocking fashion, but for something that isn't a PTSD response, to still be insensitive albeit not as insensitive as the mocking version. However I do not appoint myself as the judge of who does or doesn't have this severity of reaction, and there are issues short of actual PTSD that can be still extremely bad - I'd probably give these something of a pass.

As the thread drifted into the usual "free speech" cry earlier, you don't have a duty to be concerned for the feelings of others - at least in the general sense of the conversation there isn't a push to make laws here. But "not being an asshole" is a separate thing, and I think complete lack of concern for triggering a PTSD response in someone most definitely puts you in the asshole category.

Forgot to add to @larrytheimp SJW was actually used within progressive activist circles for a short time to self police against militant, aggressive and over the top behaviour within the movement. It was hijacked after said short time and used to smear...basically everyone thats not alt right as being the same as those worst behaviours within the movement.

[Altherion]

On 12/6/2016 at 7:07 PM, felice said:

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

Any venue. Examples can be found in the original post as well as in the Guardian article (which discusses the appearance of these things on college campuses).

20 hours ago, mormont said:

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

Of course. Nobody else knows this either and they feel no compunction about offering their opinions, so why should I?

[Squab]

37 minutes ago, karaddin said:

As the thread drifted into the usual "free speech" cry earlier, you don't have a duty to be concerned for the feelings of others - at least in the general sense of the conversation there isn't a push to make laws here. But "not being an asshole" is a separate thing, and I think complete lack of concern for triggering a PTSD response in someone most definitely puts you in the asshole category.

Yes, I see what you mean by virtue signaling being meaningless.

[Crazydog7]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

You can fuck off with trying to discredit women by referencing their reproductive organs.

 

I know I said I was leaving but I guess I'm a liar

I need to point out that the poster you quoted didn't bring up PMS you did.  If you will go back and read the original post all he did was call you cranky because you were acting well....cranky and suddenly he's a sexist patriarchal jerk who voted for Donald Trump. 

For the last three pages you have consistently demonstrated an ability to dish it  out and an inability to take it.  It doesn't even matter that the people you are arguing with would probably agree with you 95% of the time they don't agree with you 100% of the time and that makes them idiots. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

 

[karaddin]

45 minutes ago, Squab said:

Yes, I see what you mean by virtue signaling being meaningless.

You know, calling you an asshole isn't performative when you just think that person is an asshole. I wasn't even calling anyone specifically an asshole, but "don't give a fuck about others feelings" is very much in that group for me so if you're proudly asserting you have no reason to care about others feelings...I really don't see how its even controversial or something to be upset about.

Crazydog - the sexist implication of the post Dr Pepper responded to was pretty fucking clear, even if they didn't say "PMS" outright.

[Altherion]

Isn't it interesting how this thread has illustrated why terms like this are evil? The original post merely requested information, but the thread almost immediately devolved into discord and strife.