Trigger warnings

[BestBoy]

@Yautja I've consistently been referring to TWs which have evolved beyond their original use. This all further reinforces that the studies are out of touch with the purpose of TWs.

Disabled occupational therapist Claire Jones works in the area of mental health. She says that trigger warnings first appeared on feminist websites to flag up accounts of abuse. The term was adopted by various other groups, particularly the wider mental health community. This happened in the early days of the internet, when the warnings were especially common in online forums.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-26295437

This is long so I'll spoiler it.

Spoiler

Out on the far end of the agreement machine, feminist writers and academics defended the use of trigger warnings, and tried to explain their utility and their history. The modern iteration of “trigger warning,” or “TW,” as it’s commonly written, came out of the feminist blogosphere, and, like many other terms used within insular, politically active communities, addressed a specific need. Roughly ten years ago, editors at feminist and progressive Web sites realized that they needed a way of encouraging frank and candid conversation about sexual assault without catching readers unaware. Many survivors of sexual assault experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress; graphic depictions of rape or violent attacks can trigger flashbacks, nightmares, and crippling anxiety. The editors theorized that a warning posted before disturbing narratives could allow readers to prepare for what might be an upsetting but, ultimately, necessary conversation.

“Censorship was never the point,” Alexandra Brodsky, an editor at the Web site Feministing, told me. “We knew that violent and traumatic narratives could have a grave effect on the reader, so we, working together as a community, created guideposts for people to navigate what has always been a tricky terrain.” Those guideposts helped. Trigger warnings “made people feel like they could write explicitly and honestly about things that they may have not written about under different circumstances,” Brodsky said. “They let people know that this was going to be a different type of conversation.”

That logic eventually found its way into the academy. Last year, Bailey Shoemaker-Richards, a master’s student at the University of Findlay, in Ohio, started using trigger warnings in her academic presentations on cyber sexism and online abuse. The warning, she said, takes up roughly fifteen seconds at the start of a talk, and serves only as a reminder that those who are uncomfortable discussing online abuse are free to leave the room. “I don’t think a trigger warning will prevent conversations that may be upsetting,” Shoemaker-Richards told me. “But they might force people in the class to think through their reactions a little more.” Shoemaker-Richards’s use of trigger warnings largely mirrors the way that they have been implemented in classrooms across the country, and, although the term itself sounds forbidding and censorious, in practice these warnings are meant to protect students from public traumatic flashbacks. “If you know you’re about to read a graphic depiction of state racism, and you know that you’d rather be at home than in the library, the trigger warning is just information you need to make that decision,” Brodsky explained.

I hope I did spoiler tags right.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/trigger-warnings-and-the-novelists-mind

And since you've singlehandedly managed to ruin this entire post I'll go ahead and include what I sent to you earlier for all to see.

Spoiler

The parts I was referencing are:

Participants in both conditions first read three mildly distressing passages in random order to establish a baseline.

In the experimental condition, markedly distressing passages were preceded by a trigger warning (TRIGGER WARNING: The passage you are about to read contains disturbing content and may trigger an anxiety response, especially in those who have a history of trauma).

While I understand they tested for sensitization (something I missed my first time reading), I feel they overlooked whether a different operationalization of TWs (one that is more specific) would have had as adverse an effect as the one they chose. Instead they relied upon the findings of Sanson et al. (2019) despite recognizing that this study didn't use trauma victims as subjects which seems like an oversight.

I also feel the authors misunderstand the purpose of TWs outside of education/professional environments. They are used to avoid content that is harmful, not prepare oneself to be subjected to it, so the trauma victim can confront the content in a therapeutic setting. If we are only able to either be unsuspectingly subjected to harmful content or be warned beforehand and avoid it, it's obvious the latter is the better of the two. Even at the cost of a tiny increase in anxiety.

It really doesn't matter where the terminology originated from. Language evolves and it's up to these researchers to keep up in order to stay relevant.

 

[Yautja]

@BestBoy
And that is no way changes the fact that the term originated in psychology, specifically from PTSD. Or that the studies listed it use the term correctly.

"First appeared" does contradict or mean originated from. The dictionary quote above literally addresses that.
And for good measure.
Originate: to give rise to
Root: something that is an origin or source

Hello? It takes two tango. My fault, what a laugh. You're the one who came back to revive a disagreement after a day.

What on Earth are you on? You claimed they originated from something they didn't. You don't go "Origins don't matter" after being proven wrong on a claim. And those researchers are up to date.

EDIT:
trigger warning: a statement cautioning that content (as in a text, video, or class) may be disturbing or upsetting
Study 1: Trigger warnings alert trauma survivors about potentially disturbing forthcoming content.
Study 2: trigger warnings—content warnings cautioning that college course material may cause distress.
Study 3: Trigger warnings are messages alerting people to content containing themes that could cause distressing emotional reactions.

It must be "people talking out their ass" day as well as Friday the 13th.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Yautja—

My participation predates yours in the thread to which I linked, just as my participation in this thread predates yours. I skimmed or read most of the comments in each of these two threads. If there's been stalking, it would be by you, as (for whatever reason) you have in each case followed me.

But enough of your fulmination and enough of your lawyering; they're still not helpful to discussion, and don't get you anything of value from anyone else.

The original suggestion of this thread and the suggestions that evolved from it were never particularly about post-traumatic stress disorder, and the literature of that disorder is for the most part a distraction in application here, even though a line of descent can be found from the references to “triggering” in the literature of PTSD to the broader notion later found in the context of the use of the term “trigger warning”. (Lots of terms undergo such evolutions; it would, for example, be a mistake to interpret “monopoly rent” as referring peculiarly to charges by monopolists for use of real estate, though one could perversely say that the idea of a monopoly rent were rooted in the concept of usage fees for real estate.)

 

[BestBoy]

@Yautja I thought it was pretty clear in my message that this was about the purpose of TWs. I've let you change what I originally took umbrage with and that's my fault for getting caught up in your pace. Those definitions don't touch on what the ultimate goal of providing a warning is. As I've linked above, the goal is avoiding the content being warned about. You've conflated the terminology's purpose with its definition.

You were dancing just fine on your own for an entire day. Posting huge off-topic screeds that the admins got onto you about. I only spoke up after the whole post was fucked.

You haven't convinced me or anyone else that the term TW wasn't first created in feminist blogs.

Look I can make definitions support me too!

Originate: Have a specified beginning
Originate: Create or initiate (something)
"Feminist bloggers are responsible for originating this particular term."

I never argued about the roots of the term. It's obvious it has roots with "trigger," but that's completely irrelevant since modern TWs encapsulate more than just triggers for PTSD.

 

[Yautja]

@Oeconomist
Yea, except I'm not the one incorrectly memorizing what you've said on other threads and bringing it up whenever I can to harass you.

Yea, it shows that you skimmed since you claimed I said the literal opposite of what I did. I'd like to see your explanation for that.
You: "Elsewhere, you lectured Lioslin about the problem of insisting that a two-word term could be interpretted in terms of the original senses of each of the two words"
Me: "Yea, a compound of two words doesn't necessarily mean the exact same thing as the two original words. A hot dog isn't an overheated canine. Raincheck isn't checking for rain. Bookworm aren't worms made of or in books. I linked the actual definitions of the term for a reason."

"Enough of your fulmination"
Says the guy who went out of his way to start an argument by incorrectly claiming several things to true or out right lying. What insane hypocrisy.

No, but it was about trigger warnings and those originated from PTSD. And trigger warnings are used to avoid content that may "trigger" people or cause panic attacks. Also, good job ignoring the half dozen comments and nuance that led to this discussion that you involved yourself in, a discussion unrelated to yourself in which lied your ass off and continue to misrepresent.

I don't see how the origins of this thread are relevant to the bullshit you've been trying to spread, or my correcting of another person Perhaps read the entire thread before going on your fallacious rant detailing the origins of this thread? Nor do I see how that proves any of what I asked you to prove. Namely

"Still waiting for you to magically make those quotes which literally say what the origin of trigger warnings are disappear or find something that contradicts them."

I really hope for your sake you're trolling and are not genuinely this stupid.

 

[Yautja]

@BestBoy
Fortunately for you, I linked the definition of Trigger warnings, all of which describe the purpose.

trigger warning: a statement cautioning that content (as in a text, video, or class) may be disturbing or upsetting
Study 1: Trigger warnings alert trauma survivors about potentially disturbing forthcoming content.
Study 2: trigger warnings—content warnings cautioning that college course material may cause distress.
Study 3: Trigger warnings are messages alerting people to content containing themes that could cause distressing emotional reactions.

And that "ultimate goal", as described by two individuals on articles, is incorrect and not the sole purpose and something I explained to you yesterday and why I linked 3 studies and several articles. Congrats, you have two articles contradicting me, and zero studies. I have 3 studies, and a half dozen articles contradicting you.

Trigger warning: They are designed to prevent unaware encountering of certain materials or subjects for the benefit of people who have an extremely strong and damaging emotional response (for example, post-traumatic flashbacks or urges to harm themselves) to such topics. Having these responses is called "being triggered".
Just to add another to the pile.

I don't have to convince of you reality. The proof is right there, and I'm not convincing you that they weren't first used in feminist blogs, but that they originated from Psychology and PTSD, something you will never be able to contradict.

You: "I never argued about the roots of the term. It's obvious it has roots with "trigger," but that's completely irrelevant since modern TWs encapsulate more than just triggers for PTSD."
Also You: "TWs originated in the feminist blogosphere, not psychology"
Now that is what we call a contradiction.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Yautja—

I didn't make an effort to memorize what you said. I recalled your remarks because they made a good point, because I wasn't previously aware of the term as having peculiar prior meaning in a subculture, and because of course you used too many words to get across even a worthwhile point. (Even when you're correct, you resort to argumentum ad tedium.)

And, no, I didn't mis-remember your remarks:

Elsewhere, you lectured Lioslin about the problem of insisting that a two-word term could be interpretted in terms of the original senses of each of the two words

Really, I claim that it's a problem, and you interpet me as if I've said that its a desideratum or a necessity. And, if you're true-to-form, then instead of now admitting that you were grossly wrong, you'll lawyer about this point too, or just ignore it.

Your claims that I'm lying or insane or trolling or stupid are yet more of your fulmination. Again: It gets you nothing of value from anyone else. No one is persuaded by such rhetoric that you are correct.

Had you done no more than note that popular use of the term “trigger” derived from a different use the literature of PTSD, your remarks would have been a distraction. But, as it is, you have effected an equivocation.

 

[Yautja]

@Oeconomist
Nope, I'll admit I'm wrong on that point. I see what you're saying there. I'll still point out you're wrong for claiming I did try and define trigger and warning separately, since I've only listed the definition of the the compound word, not the individual words. If you're true to form you're going to overly focus on that minor victory instead on the overwhelming majority of this conversation where you've been unequivocally wrong.

Yea, no I'll still claim your liar, considering your bullshit with the definitions and origin's of the Trigger Warning word. And I'd definitely claim you're an idiot or stupid for bitching about fulmination while doing the exact same thing.

Unfortunately, that's inaccurate and I've already explained why. Do you want a repeat of us shouting back and forth where you never substantiate a single thing you say and prove yourself to be a hypocrite up until the point you inevitably leave? I have no problem doing so.

 

[BestBoy]

@Yautja Except TWs didn't originate from psychology they originated from feminist blogs. Literally all of your links have said the exact same thing I'm saying. They have roots in psychology because of "trigger," but "Trigger Warning" was created in feminist blogs. You're the one who separated root and origin. You wouldn't say the phrase "spilled the tea" originated from dining etiquette. The phrase may have roots in dining etiquette, but its origins in black drag queen culture are more important in its modern usage. The same goes for TWs.

rooted and originating in psychology

The only study that allowed subjects to skip content after being given TWs reported negative response anxiety. That's the crux of my problem. The majority of these studies are focusing on only half of the response to being warned (view or not). Which is why they hold little relevance in the larger picture that is Trigger Warnings. TWs have value because they allow people to confront their trauma in therapy and not be subjected to it when they're in a fragile state of mind.

The studies you linked have no value outside a setting where the individual is forced to view a trigger. They have no merit in a setting where the individual can skip it and bring it up later in a therapeutic setting. Mangadex is the latter.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Yautja—

I quit discussions with you for two reasons. [ul]First, as Thomas Paine once noted, arguing with unreasonable people is like administering medicine to the dead. There is sometimes some use in that, for the benefit of an audience. But one way or another one shouldn't keep it up indefinitely.
Second, I've observed how rule 5.2 is interpretted by administrators, and they take endless discussion with ill-behaved people as violations also by the other party.[/ul] Indeed, you do shout (by your own admission), but I don't. My reaction is more along the lines of “Oh, Jeez!” And, it's not a matter of my not substantiating what I say; it's a matter of your disregarding the substantiation, especially when it's in the form of an objection to the structure as such of your argument. You want to defend premises, even while I attack paralogisms.

 

[Yautja]

@BestBoy
Jesus. Christ. Yes, they did.

Each one of those words has a link describing that they did.

Originate: to give rise to : INITIATE; to take or have origin : BEGIN
Root: something that is an origin or source; one or more progenitors of a group of descendants

Trigger warnings arose out of the psychological concept of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder “triggers”—experiences or events that cause a trauma survivor to re-experience an incident, go into avoidance mode, or “numb out.” While the theory evolved in the wake of the Vietnam War, the use of “trigger warnings” is very much a result of the feminist Internet, and the atmosphere of the 21st-century political climate.
— Sarah Seltzer, Flavorwire, 27 May 2015

The idea of trigger warnings originates in the psychiatric literature on post-traumatic reactions, where triggering had the same connotations. The primary features of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) include so-called “re-experiencing symptoms”, like intrusive thoughts and flashbacks.
-NICK HASLAM, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Now what does that mean? The concept of trigger warnings stem from PTSD and Psychology.
Even if they did originate (were first used) from feminist blogs, that still does not prove in any way that "Trigger Warnings" did not originate (stem from) from psychology.

Oh my god. Please go to a therapist or a psychologist and try and tell them that. I'll wait. I've listed a 3 studies, 6 articles, and now like 10 more definitions or articles. I don't know how many times I have to say, that has been addressed in those studies and articles, and that is not what trigger warnings should do and that is certainly not helpful and leads to long term avoidance and festering of trauma.

I'm 100% serious. Go to a psychologist and ask them if trigger warnings are useful, and if they should be used as such. But considering you're ignoring 3 studies with 12 or so psychologists all saying NO to that, I doubt you'll listen.

 

[Yautja]

@Oeconomist
Well you've not only jumped back into the mud, you've instigated, so good job disregarding poor Paine and 5.2. I think all you've demonstrated is that I'll argue with anyone, and that you're a colossal hypocrite. Among many other things.

Yea, translation "I don't have to substantiate myself or prove why your substantiates are false, I can just say so because I feel like it." I can only imagine how much you'd bitch if someone did the same to you.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Yautja—

Nope. That's not a proper translation. Moreover, someone recently refused to attend to my substantiations of various claims. Part of his formula was to ignore how I substantiated my claims and to insist that I should instead engage in a tedious method. Additionally, he slung a lot of insults. But, rather than bitching, I tried reasoning with him for a while, and then quit.

 

[DANDAN_THE_DANDAN]

@Probably_wont_log_in_again

Use mangaupdates if youre that sensitive. No one has the obligation to baby a stranger,

Are you serious? I thought I pointed this out already. No casual reader needs to open two different sites, that's why we're discussing about new tags to implement here.

@Yautja @Oeconomist Stop, you guys are going off-topic. This thread is gonna get locked again at this pace.

 

[tfwnowaifu]

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Getting Triggered Over Manga Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha

 

[hecatia]

Came to read manga, but got to see desperate people seeking validation. Great.

 

[DANDAN_THE_DANDAN]

Well one is a troll and the other didn't read the TLR

 

[Probably_wont_log_in_again]

>No casual reader needs to open two different sites

Reader that doesnt want to be traumatized should do everything in their power to avoid personal 'triggers' tho. That includes but isnt limited to the sisyphean task of following additional link already plastered in visible place to a more informative database ; dont see how its that different from browsing through comment section for 'warnings' mentioned here already as possible solution to 'problem' at hand.

But that would rob those poor souls of their martyr credentials, so no dice I guess - plausible deniability is where its at. Suffering is a virtue after all, and every minute brick in your wall matters. Or should that be nail in a cross?

Conveniently you ignored the rest about tags being moot solution courtesy of people being lazy, stupid, inattentive or non-cooperative.

 

[Vofuro]

Guys, read the thread. It's not about the triggers anymore, it's about content warnings of nasty stuff.

Repeating my list, so people might actually discuss the tags instead of repeating stuff we've already discussed:

So, just wanted to repeat the suggestion list of the tags we've overall agreed make sense, just so people can see them and discuss them and don't have to go back 2+ pages:
- Psychological Abuse
- Mental Illnesses (possibly)
- Physical Abuse (as an umbrella term instead of Torture)
- Child abuse
- Substance abuse

Also, I just want to point out that it might be better for something to be more general than for it to spoiler things. If someone does want to know more about what the tag entails for a specific manga, they can ask the community. Most people here are actually nice and helpful, so it shouldn't be a problem.

@BestBoy
Animals are even more holier than children. I can not even remember ONE manga where the death of an animal is brutally shown, so that's why I downplayed it. Not even in Elfenlied the dog got killed, and if animals die, they mostly die off-screen and it's usually just implied.
It's possibly the only thing that's never, ever used for taboo or making drama, because people are like: "Kill the whole cast? No problem. BUT DON'T YOU DARE KILL THE DOG". If media would show it more critically, I wouldn't have downplayed it. But I said that as in, if you are triggered by the off-screen death of animals, you shouldn't be watching or reading entertainment at all, as that does happen occasionally, but almost never in a way that's actually nasty or brutal. Unless you count snuff stuff.
Just to clear that up Wasn't meant to downplay people with that trigger.

-----------------

Edit: Oh and right, please, if you want to discuss whether or not triggers are important/valid/bullshit/whatever - go make up another thread for it, please, in another forum. Do not spam this one. Or write PMs. There's literally no reason to continue the trigger wars here.

 

[Probably_wont_log_in_again]

>It's not about the triggers anymore, it's about content warnings of nasty stuff.

Po-tay-toh / po-tah-to. Use mangaupdates if youre 99th percentile on neuroticism distribution.