Speaking of being PC...

[Terrie]

Confidential identities or not, I simply find it telling that you think it's okay to share other people's stories, when you don't feel comfortable sharing your own.

Telling?  What does it say?

I read it as PPS relating her experience, using a nameless person who could have been anyone.....or maybe it was no one....or several combinations in one as an example.  

Why is this so important to you?

Because it's consistent with her othering and removal of agency of the mentally ill through this whole thread. 

[latraviata]

Confidential identities or not, I simply find it telling that you think it's okay to share other people's stories, when you don't feel comfortable sharing your own.

Telling?  What does it say?

I read it as PPS relating her experience, using a nameless person who could have been anyone.....or maybe it was no one....or several combinations in one as an example.  

Why is this so important to you?

Because she is a sourpuss assumedly with a spiritual diary, so she can daily keep records of her social commitment and compassion for society's sick and vulnerable.

She is aware of the required standards to be a compassionate person, because Oprah told her. In practice, however .... someone calling an ableist,  indicates a lack of insight and pedantry.

[sawasdee]

 

Unfortunately, this is a common phrase - she might also feel devastated to hear "I hate the snow!' because he loved it, or

'why is the bus late?' because he would never be able to wait for a bus again. This is not an appropriate analogy to a sociology professor saying that the next lecture is on the effects of sexual abuse of minors. The latter deserves a tw.

 

Quote 'You don't experience discomfort without a causative or offending agent'

When I wake up in the night with cramp I don't think of offending agents........

Sorry to quote myself -  I can't find snip! Burt I realised I was being weaselly not naming those who have driven me away with their repetitive and combative posting, not to mention what seems to be their intentional missing of the point, and their moving of the goalposts - so, farewell, PregnantPornStar and Beb! See I hope others in more logically argued threads......?

[Beb]

 

Unfortunately, this is a common phrase - she might also feel devastated to hear "I hate the snow!' because he loved it, or

'why is the bus late?' because he would never be able to wait for a bus again. This is not an appropriate analogy to a sociology professor saying that the next lecture is on the effects of sexual abuse of minors. The latter deserves a tw.

 

Quote 'You don't experience discomfort without a causative or offending agent'

When I wake up in the night with cramp I don't think of offending agents........

Sorry to quote myself -  I can't find snip! Burt I realised I was being weaselly not naming those who have driven me away with their repetitive and combative posting, not to mention what seems to be their intentional missing of the point, and their moving of the goalposts - so, farewell, PregnantPornStar and Beb! See I hope others in more logically argued threads......?

 

Unfortunately, this is a common phrase - she might also feel devastated to hear "I hate the snow!' because he loved it, or

'why is the bus late?' because he would never be able to wait for a bus again. This is not an appropriate analogy to a sociology professor saying that the next lecture is on the effects of sexual abuse of minors. The latter deserves a tw.

 

Quote 'You don't experience discomfort without a causative or offending agent'

When I wake up in the night with cramp I don't think of offending agents........

Sorry to quote myself -  I can't find snip! Burt I realised I was being weaselly not naming those who have driven me away with their repetitive and combative posting, not to mention what seems to be their intentional missing of the point, and their moving of the goalposts - so, farewell, PregnantPornStar and Beb! See I hope others in more logically argued threads......?

No......but it has caused your discomfort, whether or not you think about it. 

[sawasdee]

Beb - I think you just proved my point........

[Beb]

Beb - I think you just proved my point........

Beb - I think you just proved my point........

That would be nice for you, but I don't think so. 

You see, others have illogically argued the point that offense and discomfort are unrelated. As I've attempted to explain, they are intrinsically related. 

That point, you just made. 

[sawasdee]

That wasn't the point I was talking about......it was the combative and repetitive nature of your posting...............

[sockinshoe]

I'm actually typing this in my college library because I'm here allegedly studying for my midterms. I just bumped into one of my TAs who I'm friendly with and asked them about the university's policy on trigger warnings. The TA told me that, although trigger warnings are not required, they are encouraged for heavy/difficult material and there is a mandatory briefing for all the professors/TAs/fellows who will be lecturing or teaching discussion classes on how to sensitively discuss difficult material. This briefing is a new innovation because last year there was a situation in a discussion classes. The topic of discussion was "what constitutes art", and the discussion had naturally turned to art that requires a human or animal who can't consent (e.g. Damien Hirst's animals in formaldehyde, tattooed pigs, etc.). The prof decided to push the students further by asking if, if a non-consensually tattooed pig is art, child sexual abuse can be seen as art under certain circumstances. This made the class obviously uncomfortable and people voiced the opinion that this kind of question was really inappropriate and did not entirely pertain to the subject at hand. The professor did not take this on board and continued voicing the question, growing more and more vulgar throughout (clearly trying to provoke a response). Finally, a student fled from the class in tears. But even then the professor wouldn't stop trying to get some sort of response on the topic. Students complained about the professor's behaviour, the university investigated, and now they get briefings about sensitively discussing difficult topics. That is a situation where you should use trigger warnings.

In terms of censorship, I think there is an extent to which students should be able to make choices about who visits their campus. Germaine Greer, a noted transgender-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), was recently disinvited from Cardiff University because she believes that transgender women are not women. Her speech was going to be about female empowerment throughout the 20th century, so her transphobic views are very relevant to that discussion. The students who requested the disinvitation pointed out that  having her come and speak would expose other students to her anti-scientific views on gender, and potentially endanger and promote the exclusion of trans students. I support this, not because I find Greer's views abhorrent (which I do), but because that kind of speech becomes a safety issue on campus and makes a campus into a non-inclusive space. I wouldn't be bothered by speakers with differing opinions. I'm bothered when those opinions support the marginalization of minority groups.

[Beb]

That wasn't the point I was talking about......it was the combative and repetitive nature of your posting...............

Oh, that wasn't lost on me, either. 

In the interest of fairness, you should probably share that with many others in this thread....maybe a few you are omitting from your concern. 

[sawasdee]

Hey Beb -I'm bored......so, goodnight! (It's almost 11pm where I live).Sorry no tw for bored.

[Beb]

Hey Beb -I'm bored......so, goodnight! (It's almost 11pm where I live).Sorry no tw for bored.

Well, OK. 

Does this mean you're not going to point out to others that they've been rude and combative?

[sawasdee]

Beb - I think you just proved my point........

[church_of_dog]

I still do not understand how a trigger warning could reasonably limit speech.  I need an example, please.

I *do* see how a *requirement* to give trigger warnings might limit speech, because I could see a situation where someone might, upon recognizing that their intended topic is potentially triggering, feel inhibited about raising that topic in the first place.

However,

1) that is not what has been claimed here on this thread, and

2) that is part and parcel of a position that requires one to speak to groups of people about potentially triggering topics.  By accepting the task of making the presentation, one implicitly accepts the challenges that go along with it.  This reminds me of a supervisor of my acquaintance -- she is good at the content part of her job but quite poor at the supervisory part that involves dealing with other employees.  However, she knowingly took the supervisory position and IMO she should not have done so if she wasn't willing to be an effective supervisor even though some aspects of that are uncomfortable (ie dealing with performance issues).

 

But again, the trigger warning itself doesn't lead to any limitation or suppression of speech that I can figure.  So again, I request an example from those who feel that it does.

 

[Beb]

Beb - I think you just proved my point........

 

Again.....why single out one person. Go for it!  Surely you see what I've been seeing in this thread....people throwing out insults, trying to argue even the smallest things where there is really no room for argument, since certain rules will always be so, oh....heck, I could go on. I'm sure it makes no difference to you, though. 

 

 

I still do not understand how a trigger warning could reasonably limit speech.  I need an example, please.

I *do* see how a *requirement* to give trigger warnings might limit speech, because I could see a situation where someone might, upon recognizing that their intended topic is potentially triggering, feel inhibited about raising that topic in the first place.

However,

1) that is not what has been claimed here on this thread, and

2) that is part and parcel of a position that requires one to speak to groups of people about potentially triggering topics.  By accepting the task of making the presentation, one implicitly accepts the challenges that go along with it.  This reminds me of a supervisor of my acquaintance -- she is good at the content part of her job but quite poor at the supervisory part that involves dealing with other employees.  However, she knowingly took the supervisory position and IMO she should not have done so if she wasn't willing to be an effective supervisor even though some aspects of that are uncomfortable (ie dealing with performance issues).

 

But again, the trigger warning itself doesn't lead to any limitation or suppression of speech that I can figure.  So again, I request an example from those who feel that it does.

 

Of course, TWs on their own do not limit free speech. I think it's more how some may want them applied, and honestly, that's pretty clear in this discussion. 

[sawasdee]

Beb - I think you just proved my point........

[church_of_dog]

 

 

Of course, TWs on their own do not limit free speech. I think it's more how some may want them applied, and honestly, that's pretty clear in this discussion. 

Eh, honestly, it's NOT been clear.  The OP has been asked specifically about this several times, which is the evidence that it hasn't been clear, to more than one other poster.

This is one of those 'words have meanings' issues -- OP asked a good, open-ended question about TW and got several replies.  OP then made reference to trigger warnings being required and also about them limiting speech or censorship etc.  The two topics were not presented as tied together and each topic individually prompted questions from others about "where did that come from, no one has said that" and the OP still did not clarify.

If the OP had said, for example, "When TW are required it seems like speech might reasonably be suppressed as a result, and here's why I think that" and then when others responded with "but TWs aren't required" if OP had actually addressed that and explained why she thinks they ARE required (or whatever the actual case is), then even though we all hold a variety of opinions, at least the conversation could have proceeded in a comprehensible fashion.  But when requests for clarification go unanswered, or are answered with insults, the conversation goes the way of this thread instead.  Shame, really, since the original question was interesting and lots of people started out apparently eager to discuss.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

 

Of course, TWs on their own do not limit free speech. I think it's more how some may want them applied, and honestly, that's pretty clear in this discussion. 

 

can you explain further?  For example, given my posts in this thread, how do you think I may want them applied?

[Beb]

 

Of course, TWs on their own do not limit free speech. I think it's more how some may want them applied, and honestly, that's pretty clear in this discussion. 

 

can you explain further?  For example, given my posts in this thread, how do you think I may want them applied?

I haven't a clue how you would want them applied. 

I'll ask you this:  if you were reading a thread  where a tw was issued, and it was one that may have some relevance for you, what would you do?

[church_of_dog]

Sorry for all the messed up quotes above, and the odd style here -- still trying to figure out how to quote only the parts I want.

 

  1 hour ago,  Beb said:

Of course, TWs on their own do not limit free speech. I think it's more how some may want them applied, and honestly, that's pretty clear in this discussion. 

 

Beb, can you explain to me please what you mean by "I think it's more how some may want them applied".  It sounds to me like you are saying that sometimes the people who would find something triggering, would expect that others would simply not talk about things once it is known that they find that topic triggering.  Is that accurate?  So you're envisioning something more like -- someone says "there was a graphic rape scene in that movie, is everyone OK with me describing it?"  and then refrains from describing it if anyone objects?

Because I didn't see PPS say that, and I have no idea if that's what she was implying, and I also haven't seen anyone suggest that that is part of how TWs work.  The only time I personally could think of that might work that way is when the conversation is just between two people or perhaps a very small group that is having a casual chat.  That only makes sense to me -- if I'm talking with one friend, and that friend wants to talk about graphic animal abuse (using this as an example even though graphic animal abuse is not actually triggering for me, it is upsetting to the point where I would probably remove myself from seeing graphic images or hearing graphic descriptions), I would certainly ask the friend to please refrain from saying things that I would find too upsetting to hear, rather than leave the room, since that only makes sense in a two-person conversation.  On the other hand, if I were in a group setting, and in particular a formalized or purposeful group setting (ie a classroom, a talk, a protest, etc), I would not ask the speaker to limit their speech but would instead simply remove myself (close my eyes, cover my ears, leave the room, as needed).  I think my example here is representative of what most others would do as well.

So, since my examples do not constitute "limiting free speech" (because the warning is given and then the topic in question is then discussed, with people variously untriggered/having mentally prepared themselves/having removed themselves from the room as necessary), and since I presume my examples to be representative, I'd like to know how your comment fits in -- do you have different examples in mind, or do you disagree that my examples are representative, or is there some other explanation of what you meant by "I think it's more how some may want them applied"?

 

[FundieFarmer]

"If you were reading a thread where a tw was issued, and it was one that may have some relevance for you, what would you do?" 

This is a good question. I can only answer it as a survivor of assault who is recovering from PTSD. As we've seen upthread, those with other conditions may use the TW differently. That's for them to answer. My experience usually depends on my mood at the moment. If I've had a long day, if something else has triggered me, if XYZ variable has occurred, I will most likely forego the thread. If it is a better day in my recovery (like most thankfully are now), I will most likely read on. Whether or not I reply will depend on whether I feel the original poster or other commenters would be open to my opinion. 

I'm much less dependent on TWs than I used to be, because I'm in a different part of my healing journey. But, they were very important to me in the beginning, and very useful and helpful. 

I continue to come back to this thread because questions like these are valuable. I think they can provide a window to greater understanding. I think that @Terrie's and my conversation upthread is an excellent example of how working out confusion in a conversation rather than pointing fingers and throwing sass can lead to a whole new viewpoint. What I don't understand is why there is so much talking in circles. Posters are contradicting themselves, then becoming upset and speaking in circles as an answer when called out. I am having a really hard time tracking what people are saying, not only because quoting is confusing on Taptalk and people are parsing quotes to attribute them to the wrong people, but also because I think some people on either side don't really know what they're trying to express. I'm all for opinions and I don't at all mind being in disagreement with each other. But there's a purpose in trying to work things out, and that's comprehension, and there's merit in trying to do it civilly. Also, change your mind all you want...but at least make your position clear. I'm not even sure what some posters are trying to say anymore.

[church_of_dog]

FF said:

But there's a purpose in trying to work things out, and that's comprehension, and there's merit in trying to do it civilly.

 

This is so so SO true, and so obvious and apparent once one sees it spelled out as you have done here.  So why do we all (here and IRL) have such trouble acknowledging this and using it as the foundation for our interactions?

I just don't get it...

[FundieFarmer]

You know, I've learned a lot from interactions on FJ. When I first started lurking, I'd gone through a tough time in my life and I'd lost my voice. I was trying to do everything right, never upset anyone, and had stopped speaking up in the process. The first time I got called out on FJ, I about died. But then, I decided to stand up for what I thought, and approach everything in a "I learn from you, you learn from me" sort of tone as best I could (I know it doesn't always work!). And I've really gotten out what I put in. FJ has "introduced" me to a lot of people who have a lot to offer. Just because our worlds are different and so are our experiences doesn't mean there is nothing of value there. In fact, I think there's more value there. 

I think there's much to be said for realizing that the rock that's painted black on my side may actually be white on yours. Sooner or later, we have to meet in the middle, or we'll never see the grey area and understand each other. That's what I experienced with @Terrie, in this very thread. As she said triggers weren't a way of avoiding and it angered her that people said that, I couldn't see any other way they were used, as that was exactly how I used them. A few more questions made it clear she saw it from a chronic angle, where I saw it from PTSD. Those are such different things! I would have missed that understanding if I hadn't just asked. I think that once someone is interacting and willing to be civil, much can be gleaned from the conversation.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

TWs on their own do not limit free speech. I think it's more how some may want them applied, and honestly, that's pretty clear in this discussion. 

 

can you explain further?  For example, given my posts in this thread, how do you think I may want them applied?

I haven't a clue how you would want them applied. 

I'll ask you this:  if you were reading a thread  where a tw was issued, and it was one that may have some relevance for you, what would you do?

I honestly don't know.  It never happened, I am lucky enough to not to have serious issues with anything. And I am not presumptuous enough to prewume to know what I would do in a similar situation. 

Since from the thread I cannot deduce how someone would apply tws to censor free speech, can you please point that out for me?

[Eighth-of-eleven]

How I use trigger warnings. As someone who has both complex PTSD and chronic severe mental illnes as well as a brain injury, all of which limit my ability to engage in public discourse at times, this is how I find it useful to me, not censuring to the conversation,speech, lecture or discussion being held or dreadfully "coddling" to me at the expense of others "freedom of speech". 

 

I appreciate the use of a TW if certain materials will be discussed so that I may make the decision to, depending on my ability that day, stay, leave, get limited information related to class material so that I may engage appropriately with the subject or perhaps decide beforehand that this is not a class, speech, lecture, discussion I care to, or am able to, engage with at this time. 

In regard to simple conversations, I was sort of snarking, people I choose to converse with casually are usually intelligent enough and kind enough and aware enough to be sensitive about most subjects...

I 

[Terrie]

How do I respond to TWs that include some of my issues? Well, it depends on the timing and context. Some of my triggers are stronger than others. Some days are better than others. Some contexts where they come up are more important than others. For me, it's a basic cost/benefit analysis. If I think the benefits I will get will be greater than what it will cost me, I move forward. If not, I set it aside to deal with later, when the factors are different. I think I've been pretty consistent in my view of TWs as a form of content information that is used to make choices and decisions, so how I use them should not be a shock to anyone.