Speaking of being PC...

[PregnantPornStar]

When reading the "shaming Zsu" thread I was constantly thinking of "safe spaces" at universities.

So, what are your thoughts on "trigger warnings, "safe-spaces" and being PC?

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/1 ... lie-hebdo/

[treemom]

Snort. Really safe spaces? That's somehow comparable to calling someone fat is a cheap shot?

I think trigger warnings in education are a problem. I think the concept of safe spaces is a problem exist if very few situations.

I think you are intents ally stirring shit.

[MatthewDuggar]

I can recall being pretty much forced into listening to a lot of crap in college from strong-willed professors and the like, but thinking back it was a learning experience for me at least and should probably be glad it happened. The whole "trigger warning and "safe space" thing seems to be a major trend as of late. Are there really that many people that need this? I can understand and sympathize someone that is seriously dealing with some sort of PTSD. But generally it seems that "facing our fears" as a concept has been tossed out the window. I need to keep thinking about it. Great topic!

[MarblesMom]

I can recall being pretty much forced into listening to a lot of crap in college from strong-willed professors and the like, but thinking back it was a learning experience for me at least and should probably be glad it happened. The whole "trigger warning and "safe space" thing seems to be a major trend as of late. Are there really that many people that need this? I can understand and sympathize someone that is seriously dealing with some sort of PTSD. But generally it seems that "facing our fears" as a concept has been tossed out the window. I need to keep thinking about it. Great topic!

I thought one of the points of higher education was to learn how to critically think (as in, question that crap from professors) and also to expand one's mind/current knowledge. While I agree there might be certain circumstances where someone might need to excuse themselves, I disagree that one should retreat when an idea is presented they (a) disagree with or (b) have never heard of and it "must be wrong."

[PregnantPornStar]

I thought one of the points of higher education was to learn how to critically think (as in, question that crap from professors) and also to expand one's mind/current knowledge. While I agree there might be certain circumstances where someone might need to excuse themselves, I disagree that one should retreat when an idea is presented they (a) disagree with or (b) have never heard of and it "must be wrong."

I do think it is a trend and one that is troubling. Critical thinking and being exposed to different ideas and a huge part of education, yet with this current culture of constant trigger warnings and whatnot, people are preventing honest discussions and learning from happening.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015- ... -education

I don't even know how people can have normal discussions that flow without tiptoeing around sensitive issues.

[DuggaredOut]

Here's another excellent related article from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... nd/399356/

I don't think there's any harm in apprising students that the class is about to read or view disturbing topics so that individual students with a legitimate PTSD diagnosis from a mental health professional can excuse themselves. The problem is when anyone can cry "trigger" or "microaggression" for any reason and disrupt the classroom, silence other students or professors, and/or weasel out of assignments by feigning offense. Some of these kids have even gotten those who "offended" them into serious legal trouble or endangered their careers. Outside of cases of intentional harassment, that just shouldn't happen.

Lots of subjects are uncomfortable to contemplate. Lots of subjects should be uncomfortable to contemplate. Three-quarters of what I watch on the news falls into that category. Shutting down discussion of these subjects actually does more to perpetuate the problems than addressing them. The university environment is supposed to be a bastion of free speech and debate. It's my belief that censorship has no place in that environment in all but the most extreme cases (e.g., when someone is making threats of bodily harm to someone else). It should never be used to limit discussion of ideas or concepts, no matter how distasteful they are to some students. Those students should not be given the power to decide which ideas are "right" or "wrong" or to enforce their values on others through censorship or intimidation.

Also, this notion that physical violence is ever an acceptable response to people whose ideas you don't like is dangerous in the extreme and should not be tolerated on any campus.

When I read articles like these, I become really concerned about what lies ahead for our society in the future because these kids are going to graduate in a few years and enter the workforce with the rest of us. If we don't start turning things around while they're still in school, what are our communities going to look like a few years down the road? :?

[guitar_villain]

When reading the "shaming Zsu" thread I was constantly thinking of "safe spaces" at universities.

So, what are your thoughts on "trigger warnings, "safe-spaces" and being PC?

Trigger warnings and safe spaces aren't really in the same category. I work at a college: in our context "safe space" is just a place where students can feel free to talk- it's typically put on faculty/staff doors to indicate that the inhabitant is willing to discuss potentially difficult things. I think there's a specific training series you're supposed to take ahead of time. The context here is almost always LGBTQ- the stickers are usually rainbow.

Trigger warnings are a whole 'nother animal. I was rather heartened by a discussion on these run by our teaching center where basically everyone more or less agreed they weren't going to alter their classes or avoid potentially upsetting materials. The basic thread was that we're trying to prepare students to be adults, and that means they may have to deal with material that will make them uncomfortable. (One pre-law prof commented that it was going to be pretty hard to teach a class on sexual assault/violence and the law without literally every single reading being a trigger) If you hide from anything that you don't like you're going to do a crappy job of dealing with it later, and that goes both for triggers like violence but also uncomfortable ideas. Let people know that the material might be upsetting? Sure. Avoid teaching it? No.

One amusing story: the final project in my class is for students to pick a controversial scientific theory and defend it. I have a list of about 30: I include racial disparities in IQ as a possible topic, specifically to defend The Bell Curve. I assumed nobody would ever select it since it's such a radioactive topic: it's been picked the majority of times, including once by a black student. It's only once you're willing to really grapple with the evidence that you can begin to see just how weak it really is- shouting it down and refusing to listen is nothing compared to being able to demolish the foundations of the book logically.

[Coco]

Trigger warnings and safe spaces aren't really in the same category. I work at a college: in our context "safe space" is just a place where students can feel free to talk- it's typically put on faculty/staff doors to indicate that the inhabitant is willing to discuss potentially difficult things. I think there's a specific training series you're supposed to take ahead of time. The context here is almost always LGBTQ- the stickers are usually rainbow.

Trigger warnings are a whole 'nother animal. I was rather heartened by a discussion on these run by our teaching center where basically everyone more or less agreed they weren't going to alter their classes or avoid potentially upsetting materials. The basic thread was that we're trying to prepare students to be adults, and that means they may have to deal with material that will make them uncomfortable. (One pre-law prof commented that it was going to be pretty hard to teach a class on sexual assault/violence and the law without literally every single reading being a trigger) If you hide from anything that you don't like you're going to do a crappy job of dealing with it later, and that goes both for triggers like violence but also uncomfortable ideas. Let people know that the material might be upsetting? Sure. Avoid teaching it? No.

One amusing story: the final project in my class is for students to pick a controversial scientific theory and defend it. I have a list of about 30: I include racial disparities in IQ as a possible topic, specifically to defend The Bell Curve. I assumed nobody would ever select it since it's such a radioactive topic: it's been picked the majority of times, including once by a black student. It's only once you're willing to really grapple with the evidence that you can begin to see just how weak it really is- shouting it down and refusing to listen is nothing compared to being able to demolish the foundations of the book logically.

I love this. Thank you for the work you do.

[Walking Cat Bed]

Trigger warnings are, to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, more effective when they're less frequent.

For example, making the note that "pages x through y of this assigned reading describe an assault in particular detail; a summary of that segment is available at 123lmnop.com. You are responsible for general knowledge of the content but you are not required to read pages x through y" is much different than "we can't assign The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks because it talks about cancer in a lady's *whisper* no-no square."

I'm not a teacher, just a grad student. If I wasn't expected to read texts that involve racism, sexual assault, or other topics that can negatively effect someone who has experienced those things, I'd be left with Dr. Seuss.

Using trigger warnings as a way to indicate that extraordinarily graphic content is included in a source is reasonable. Allowing someone to read a summary of the content is reasonable. Allowing alternate content that is overwhelmingly equivalent (except for the graphic content) is reasonable.

Insisting that anyone who does not want to read a detailed description of sexual assault or watch a depiction of very violent acts is asking to be babied is a bit assholish. Expecting everyone else to cater to a demand that no assigned (or available) content includes the word "rape" is also assholish.

[PregnantPornStar]

Trigger warnings and safe spaces aren't really in the same category. I work at a college: in our context "safe space" is just a place where students can feel free to talk- it's typically put on faculty/staff doors to indicate that the inhabitant is willing to discuss potentially difficult things. I think there's a specific training series you're supposed to take ahead of time. The context here is almost always LGBTQ- the stickers are usually rainbow

*snip*.

I understand what you are saying.

This article may better explain...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/op ... l?referer=

The confusion is telling, though. It shows that while keeping college-level discussions “safe†may feel good to the hypersensitive, it’s bad for them and for everyone else. People ought to go to college to sharpen their wits and broaden their field of vision. Shield them from unfamiliar ideas, and they’ll never learn the discipline of seeing the world as other people see it. They’ll be unprepared for the social and intellectual headwinds that will hit them as soon as they step off the campuses whose climates they have so carefully controlled. What will they do when they hear opinions they’ve learned to shrink from? If they want to change the world, how will they learn to persuade people to join them?

And then there was this.

chrishernandezauthor.com/2015/01/02/microaggressions-trigger-warnings-and-the-new-meaning-of-trauma/

[2xx1xy1JD]

I recently had a discussion about trigger-warnings on Love, Joy, Feminism.

The Spectator article is about a certain political view run amuk. This was basically my experience throughout university. I went to a school with no big sports or partying, but tons of extreme political activism - and I majored in Political Science. I went in with somewhat left/liberal, moderate political views, and was basically thrown into this vortex where I encountered some extreme arguments that felt like a punch to the gut, but found that I had no immediate answer. So, I spent the rest of my time there basically trying to figure out how to pull apart the arguments, gather facts, do research, and re-examine my entire POV on religious and political issues. It felt excrutiating at times, but it was also like independent thinking bootcamp.

From what I understand, when used legitimately, trigger warnings are about giving some advance warning about things that might trigger PTSD so they can brace themselves, and allowing an overwhelmed student to leave. Girl 1 told me that in her high school, teachers do that. I can understand accommodating a legitimate psychiatric need. I would not, however, want this to morph into avoidance of hard topics altogether.

[Fascinated]

It's fascinating how things change in just a few years. When I was in high school/university a trigger warning would have meant that someone had a gun! We just had to get on with life and deal with stuff. I'm not really sure whether it is now better or worse!

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I understand what you are saying.

This article may better explain...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/op ... l?referer=

The confusion is telling, though. It shows that while keeping college-level discussions “safe†may feel good to the hypersensitive, it’s bad for them and for everyone else. People ought to go to college to sharpen their wits and broaden their field of vision. Shield them from unfamiliar ideas, and they’ll never learn the discipline of seeing the world as other people see it. They’ll be unprepared for the social and intellectual headwinds that will hit them as soon as they step off the campuses whose climates they have so carefully controlled. What will they do when they hear opinions they’ve learned to shrink from? If they want to change the world, how will they learn to persuade people to join them?

And then there was this.

chrishernandezauthor.com/2015/01/02/microaggressions-trigger-warnings-and-the-new-meaning-of-trauma/

From the artifice you posted at the end:

But nobody, nobody, should censor themselves to protect you from your pathological, and pathologically stupid, sensitivities.

Which ones? The transsexual sensitives, or the people of color, or the indigionous people he wrote about?

I find the tumblr mentality of some who advocate to never be exposed to anything unpleasant to be asinine, but dismissing complex and nuanced issues of groups of which he is not a part isn't better. I question your motives for posting this here; seems as if the intent was purely shit stirring.

So yeah...then there is this.

[PregnantPornStar]

I recently had a discussion about trigger-warnings on Love, Joy, Feminism.

The Spectator article is about a certain political view run amuk. This was basically my experience throughout university. I went to a school with no big sports or partying, but tons of extreme political activism - and I majored in Political Science. I went in with somewhat left/liberal, moderate political views, and was basically thrown into this vortex where I encountered some extreme arguments that felt like a punch to the gut, but found that I had no immediate answer. So, I spent the rest of my time there basically trying to figure out how to pull apart the arguments, gather facts, do research, and re-examine my entire POV on religious and political issues. It felt excrutiating at times, but it was also like independent thinking bootcamp.

From what I understand, when used legitimately, trigger warnings are about giving some advance warning about things that might trigger PTSD so they can brace themselves, and allowing an overwhelmed student to leave. Girl 1 told me that in her high school, teachers do that. I can understand accommodating a legitimate psychiatric need. I would not, however, want this to morph into avoidance of hard topics altogether.

I completely follow what you are saying here. I get it 100%. However, I do think, while it is in good faith to protect individuals, it may be doing more harm than good. I am "generally" not a fan of the slippery slope argument. However, I think it is telling that a few years ago these terms were not super relevant in daily life or in universities. Now they are everywhere. I see it in articles I read. Not only that, who is to decide what is legitimate and what is not? I am not saying this in effort to disagree with you. But now *everything* is a trigger warning. I think it is fair to say, if a subject makes you feel uncomfortable, remove yourself. Don't expect others to warn you ahead of time and don't expect to be accommodated. There is a point where you do need to deal with life.

It's fascinating how things change in just a few years. When I was in high school/university a trigger warning would have meant that someone had a gun! We just had to get on with life and deal with stuff. I'm not really sure whether it is now better or worse!

I think getting on with life is important. I worry about the idea of "over coddling" and how that can impact not only society, but individuals, in the long term. So I would say mostly worse, however, I do see enough people speaking out against it, so maybe it is bringing to light that honest discussions need to be had about many topics and that figuring out what makes people feel badly might be a good indicator to what needs to be "fixed". Or at least that there is a problem and try to find the root of that problem.

[Whoosh]

Can I just ask what this thread has to do with the Zsu thread? First, I strongly agree with the poster that pointed out that safe spaces and trigger warnings are two very different things. Second, I think this is actually a valuable topic and one worthy of discussing. Unfortunately, you seem to be equating trigger warnings with the fact that some people find body-shaming acceptable and others do not. I just really don't see how these are the same in any way. I can find it rude and distasteful when people mock short people or overweight people, but that has nothing remotely to do with the PTSD symptoms I experienced after a traumatic event. This thread (or perhaps just the way you chose to present it?) just confuses me and leaves me completely uninterested in discussing the actual issue. I hope it accomplishes the goals you set out to achieve.

[Maggie Mae]

Safe spaces (as in an actual, physical space, where people go and talk) are a great idea and all, but also complete crap. There is no such thing as a "safe" place. Anything you say to another person has the risk of getting out of the so called "safe space." Even if the person who shares information from the "safe space" is barred from returning, the damage is done. I wouldn't rely on

I think trigger warnings on websites are silly. Trigger warnings in university annoy me. University is supposed to be a place where discussions and learning occur. Lively debate. Not one person screaming at another and shutting down conversations because feelings.

[PregnantPornStar]

Can I just ask what this thread has to do with the Zsu thread? First, I strongly agree with the poster that pointed out that safe spaces and trigger warnings are two very different things. Second, I think this is actually a valuable topic and one worthy of discussing. Unfortunately, you seem to be equating trigger warnings with the fact that some people find body-shaming acceptable and others do not. I just really don't see how these are the same in any way. I can find it rude and distasteful when people mock short people or overweight people, but that has nothing remotely to do with the PTSD symptoms I experienced after a traumatic event. This thread (or perhaps just the way you chose to present it?) just confuses me and leaves me completely uninterested in discussing the actual issue. I hope it accomplishes the goals you set out to achieve.

Eh, I was simply reminded of a current trend of people being hypersensitive. I could have posted without expressing how my brain went on it's typical ADHD path. Which is why I put PC in the title vs microagression, trigger warnings or safe spaces. Regardless, it wasn't meant in defense of or against "body-shaming".

I am also not saying they are the same thing, but they are related. (Trigger warnings and safe-spaces). I was not using them interchangeably.

[Whoosh]

Thanks for that explanation. I think it totally depends on the context and setting. Some topics just by nature have a strong propensity to trigger PTSD or other issues in individuals who have been through a trauma. I think we can get carried away as you and others have said to attaching trigger warnings to just about everything. I can feel ramble coming on here so I am going to nip it in the bud with an example.

SOS TRIGGER WARNING

I was the first person to find my fiancé after his successful completion of suicide. EVERYTHING triggered me in the beginning (well, not really but lots of things). It was what it was and not much anyone else could have possibly done would have helped. A few years later, I took a continuing ed class on screenwriting. We would pick a script, assign people roles and do readings in class. One student included (out of the blue so to speak) a scene of a graphic and detailed account of a suicide. I sure would have appreciated a warning. Had I been attending a lecture series on depression, I think my expectations of the content would have been somewhat different and a trigger warning might have seemed overdone.

Please realize I don't feel anyone owed me a trigger warning or that there is anything odd or wrong with including such a scene in a screenplay. I just feel that some topics have such a clear potential to trigger a subset of the population that a trigger warning, if thought of, makes good sense.

ETA - I just want to add that I don't in any way think a topic should be shut down if it is triggering for a given individual. I simply think there are times where it is appropriate to prepare people for what they will hear and perhaps allow them to excuse themselves if it is not central to the class/situation/etc.

[PregnantPornStar]

Thanks for that explanation. I think it totally depends on the context and setting. Some topics just by nature have a strong propensity to trigger PTSD or other issues in individuals who have been through a trauma. I think we can get carried away as you and others have said to attaching trigger warnings to just about everything. I can feel ramble coming on here so I am going to nip it in the bud with an example.

SOS TRIGGER WARNING

I was the first person to find my fiancé after his successful completion of suicide. EVERYTHING triggered me in the beginning (well, not really but lots of things). It was what it was and not much anyone else could have possibly done would have helped. A few years later, I took a continuing ed class on screenwriting. We would pick a script, assign people roles and do readings in class. One student included (out of the blue so to speak) a scene of a graphic and detailed account of a suicide. I sure would have appreciated a warning. Had I been attending a lecture series on depression, I think my expectations of the content would have been somewhat different and a trigger warning might have seemed overdone.

Please realize I don't feel anyone owed me a trigger warning or that there is anything odd or wrong with including such a scene in a screenplay. I just feel that some topics have such a clear potential to trigger a subset of the population that a trigger warning, if thought of, makes good sense.

ETA - I just want to add that I don't in any way think a topic should be shut down if it is triggering for a given individual. I simply think there are times where it is appropriate to prepare people for what they will hear and perhaps allow them to excuse themselves if it is not central to the class/situation/etc.

I get what you are saying and while I think that seems nice and helpful, I also question if this is preparing people for "real life". I think being able to sort through your feelings and reactions to issues you are sensitive to is good and wonder if "warning" a person is hindering this in some way.

I am not suggesting that people act like jerks, but there is also the "life isn't fair" aspect to all of this.

Also, what times is it appropriate and who gets to decide what does and doesn't need trigger warnings?

[Whoosh]

I get what you are saying and while I think that seems nice and helpful, I also question if this is preparing people for "real life". I think being able to sort through your feelings and reactions to issues you are sensitive to is good and wonder if "warning" a person is hindering this in some way.

I am not suggesting that people act like jerks, but there is also the "life isn't fair" aspect to all of this.

Also, what times is it appropriate and who gets to decide what does and doesn't need trigger warnings?

I hear ya. However, I lived a block from a hospital in a city and sirens triggered me at the beginning. I had plenty of "real life". While it is delightful you think everyone should just suck it up because "life isn't fair", my POINT was perhaps there are times where that attitude isn't necessary. Interesting you think it is "nice and helpful" yet wasn't "preparing me for real life". You have NO IDEA what I have dealt with in real life. I am damn well experienced with "sorting through my feelings and reactions to issues" and I can tell you that my "feelings and reactions" to finding my fiancé dead on the floor took a while to work out. Normal, reasonable people who understand "real life" can perhaps feel that it isn't necessary to add to the complications by triggering reactions that could EASILY and HARMLESSLY be avoided.

If you think trigger warnings are unnecessary or harmful and are unwilling to see another side of things, why pose the question? Why not just a self-serving rant against trigger warnings?

[church_of_dog]

Also, what times is it appropriate and who gets to decide what does and doesn't need trigger warnings?

My general perspective in life is that "people don't realize it, but many of their day-to-day problems would be solved with the addition of a modest amount of context."

I usually don't speak up every time I think "more context would help" because I have learned that people aren't always able or interested to think in those terms. But here is a place where I think that IS the specific answer to your question. (assuming it wasn't a rhetorical question, that is)

People decide when a trigger warning is appropriate in the same way they decide whether to explain their use of a phrase or acronym in conversation: when they reasonably think it would be helpful.

So as Woosh (I think) said, a class on depression would have certain inherent discussion topic expectations that are different from a class on screenwriting. So certain topics being raised in the screenwriting class would seem reasonably game for a trigger warning, event though those same topics probably would not in a class on depression. But a really graphic description of an event or of a person's emotional reaction might warrant a warning even in the depression class. It all depends on the context. And being able to perceive context is, I would hope, a standard hallmark of being an adult in this culture.

Although, sadly, I know of at least a couple of adults who seem oblivious to it, so maybe I'm way off on that.

I certainly don't think it needs to be codified or legislated, and I do agree that adults who are vulnerable should be prepared for triggering topics to arise with no warning given, because sometimes life just happens that way...

[PregnantPornStar]

I hear ya. However, I lived a block from a hospital in a city and sirens triggered me at the beginning. I had plenty of "real life". While it is delightful you think everyone should just suck it up because "life isn't fair", my POINT was perhaps there are times where that attitude isn't necessary. Interesting you think it is "nice and helpful" yet wasn't "preparing me for real life". You have NO IDEA what I have dealt with in real life. I am damn well experienced with "sorting through my feelings and reactions to issues" and I can tell you that my "feelings and reactions" to finding my fiancé dead on the floor took a while to work out. Normal, reasonable people who understand "real life" can perhaps feel that it isn't necessary to add to the complications by triggering reactions that could EASILY and HARMLESSLY be avoided.

If you think trigger warnings are unnecessary or harmful and are unwilling to see another side of things, why pose the question? Why not just a self-serving rant against trigger warnings?

I absolutely did not mean YOU individually. Not at all and I am sorry you experienced that. I have also not made any impression that I, myself, have not had to deal with real life. In fact, the fact that I don't know your personal history and you do not know mine, is the very reason this could be tricky. With so many things that could potentially need trigger warnings, and the fact that discussions can bring up other things, it seems hard to manage.

My point is more, how do we choose what gets warnings, who decides, how do we make sure everyone is still having conversations and that we are not sheltering people, in general, from triggers.

For example, what if a kid enters university and grew up a military brat. Kid's parent was killed in action. Should a class have a trigger warning before discussing was in Afghanistan? Or any war?

Also, what if the topic of suicide is sensitive to someone else reading this very thread. Obviously you never meant to hurt anyone or upset them.

[Whoosh]

I absolutely did not mean YOU individually. Not at all and I am sorry you experienced that. I have also not made any impression that I, myself, have not had to deal with real life. In fact, the fact that I don't know your personal history and you do not know mine, is the very reason this could be tricky.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you realize that when you talk about "them" or "you (general)", you are actually talking about people. Living breathing people. You don't know their personal histories. Why do you think you should be the arbiter of when everyone needs a dose of "real life"? Very confusing to me.

With so many things that could potentially need trigger warnings, and the fact that discussions can bring up other things, it seems hard to manage.

My point is more, how do we choose what gets warnings, who decides, how do we make sure everyone is still having conversations and that we are not sheltering people, in general, from triggers.

As I said in my first response and church of dog said in a response - context and common sense. It really doesn't get any clearer than that. If that does not make sense to you on some level, perhaps you would not be the best choice for making any decisions on when a trigger warning is appropriate. If you are ever in a situation where you are unsure if you should give a trigger warning, perhaps you could ask someone who seems to understand this concept better.

For example, what if a kid enters university and grew up a military brat. Kid's parent was killed in action. Should a class have a trigger warning before discussing was in Afghanistan? Or any war?

What class is it? "War in this Century" or "Interesting topics for creative writing"? Did the student make the teacher aware of the situation? How long has it been since the losses? Context and common sense really do go a long way in "real life" situations.

Also, what if the topic of suicide is sensitive to someone else reading this very thread. Obviously you never meant to hurt anyone or upset them.

Did you not notice I gave a trigger warning? Perhaps you could read back and see that I did, indeed, give a trigger warning for SOS (survivors of suicide). I assume (possibly in error) that survivors of suicide would have seen SOS TRIGGER WARNING and understood that to be a trigger warning for survivors of suicide. Not sure how else to answer this question.

I am going to disengage from this conversation as you don't seem to be able to hear me when I engage in conversations with you or if you do hear you don't seem to receive the intended message of my words. Wishing you well with sorting out your feelings and reactions to the existence of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and "PCness" in general.

[latraviata]

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you realize that when you talk about "them" or "you (general)", you are actually talking about people. Living breathing people. You don't know their personal histories. Why do you think you should be the arbiter of when everyone needs a dose of "real life"? Very confusing to me.

As I said in my first response and church of dog said in a response - context and common sense. It really doesn't get any clearer than that. If that does not make sense to you on some level, perhaps you would not be the best choice for making any decisions on when a trigger warning is appropriate. If you are ever in a situation where you are unsure if you should give a trigger warning, perhaps you could ask someone who seems to understand this concept better.

What class is it? "War in this Century" or "Interesting topics for creative writing"? Did the student make the teacher aware of the situation? How long has it been since the losses? Context and common sense really do go a long way in "real life" situations.

Did you not notice I gave a trigger warning? Perhaps you could read back and see that I did, indeed, give a trigger warning for SOS (survivors of suicide). I assume (possibly in error) that survivors of suicide would have seen SOS TRIGGER WARNING and understood that to be a trigger warning for survivors of suicide. Not sure how else to answer this question.

I am going to disengage from this conversation as you don't seem to be able to hear me when I engage in conversations with you or if you do hear you don't seem to receive the intended message of my words. Wishing you well with sorting out your feelings and reactions to the existence of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and "PCness" in general.

I think that is a wise decision.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

I considered ignoring this whole thread, but I'll give it a shot and leave it at that.

I don't think "safe space," "trigger warning" and "PC" are necessarily related. Further, I am concerned about the implication that trigger warnings may be PC run amok. I think people who use all three of those terms in the same breath are conflating a number of different issues.

I don't think a trigger warning is appropriate for someone trying to avoid challenging or different points of view or writings, as has been implied. I do think, however, as society has become more aware of mental health, that advocates have come to recognize that a segment of the population has legitimate mental health concerns, particularly in regard to PTSD, which makes giving fair advance warning appropriate.

Several examples: I took a graduate level class on heroism two falls ago. The professor did not use the term "trigger warning" but acknowledged in the syllabus that some of the reading material focused on war and warriors and encouraged appropriate self care. He also asked in early class discussions (this was online) for people to self-identify if they felt comfortable.

On a recent thread here, a link was posted to a website with graphics of violence. Nothing was noted about said graphics, but another poster came along, found the violent photos, and noted that they were there with a "trigger warning."

It's pretty common place (and courteous) to mark a link NSFW if the content is not appropriate to be viewed on workplace computers. The NSFW tag also warns people with children, etc.

I don't think "trigger warning" is much different from NSFW. Common sense enables people to know when information has potential to upset people.

As to the question of whether so many people need trigger warnings - 1 in 4 women (best stat I've seen) experiences sexual violence in her lifetime. A vast population of US service members has returned from combat settings in the last 15 years, and we've become more aware of the connection between combat and PTSD (previously called shell shock and other terms that are escaping me.)

So, yes, a need exists. Who decides? Society through common sense and a bit of sensitivity. It's not rocket science.

Finally, perhaps it's unjust of me, but I question whether this thread was created to stir things up, because the OP is oblivious to climate, or from a genuine interest.