Speaking of being PC...

[VelociRapture]

Simply put, a good syllabus tells a student what to expect from the class. If a student is blind-sided by something like genocide in your class, you're a crappy teacher.

I'm also annoyed at people who respond to concerns with "Well, if you really have a problem, you should be in therapy." Um, what if they ARE in therapy? Are people with legit mental illness supposed to stay home and not participate in society until they reach a certain level of "normal"? There's something very ableist in the that kind of thinking.

Accommodating disabilities is about giving people tools to navigate a society designed around "normal" people, not coddling them like eternal infants. Telling people people "Be aware the course contains X, Y and Z." is giving people a tool to make decisions. Saying "You can't have X, Y and Z" is coddling.

Exactly.

No one here has come close to saying we have to shut down any topics that are in anyway controversial. What people have said is that providing a heads up can be a great way to help people prepare ahead of time for subjects that may be upsetting to some of them - which makes it much easier for people to have those important discussions and cuts down on the number of potential interruptions that may happen.

I honestly don't get the opposition to Trigger Warnings. I know that I appreciate having a heads up ahead of time when someone here is posting a link to violently graphic content - not because I don't think its important to discuss underlying causes of violence, but because its nice to take a moment to mentally and emotionally prepare for viewing something that may be extremely disturbing. It just strikes me as common courtesy to take a moment to consider the possible emotional and mental state of other people - and it usually takes all of two seconds to write a short warning.

Same goes for course content. I'm currently taking Anatomy & Physiology I. Our very first lab was a dissection of a fetal pig. Most people weren't too thrilled about it (I personally thought it was awesome), but no one got upset or freaked out - because our Professor warned us what to expect in the previous class. One girl did have to leave early, but she was in her second trimester and physically couldn't tolerate the smell (and the Professor was perfectly fine with that.)

I was diagnosed with ptsd after a series of issues I began having some years back. I have triggers. I have anxiety attacks/physical responses to certain stimuli. Triggers can be the most random (often seemingly innocuous) things that simply spark a memory of an event. I do not expect anyone to warn me of something that may "trigger" me because I often don't know myself until I'm already there. There are some types of conversations that I can't get involved in because I take them too seriously and get too emotionally invested -- and then I have to withdraw to avoid having a public meltdown. (And I've done this and am always utterly embarrassed afterwards). It's no one's job to protect me from myself or from something that might upset me. It's my job to know my own limits.

That said, I don't see what's wrong with warning a class that some subject matter may be difficult. Way back in the Dark Ages when I was in college (long, long before the current "pc" climate), we'd occasionally have a warning that the class would be discussing something difficult or graphic so that we could make the best decisions for our own needs. If someone cannot -- legitimately cannot -- handle an in-depth conversation about child abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, etc., why would anyone want to force them to sit through it? Isn't that person the best judge of what is and isn't right for them? How does a TW hurt anyone? I can see that it might be annoying and eye-roll-y to someone who has no issues, but does it really affect your ability to learn? It's easy to tell someone to just "get over it," but sometimes that's a lot easier said than done.

And tbh, content warnings have been on TV for as long as I can remember. And I am not a young woman anymore. Really, who cares? And if you do care, why? As long as the TW isn't silencing the discussion but allowing those who cannot engage in a healthy way to remove themselves from it, I really do not understand what the big deal is.

What you said is pretty much perfect. Everyone has a responsibility to know their own limits and make responsible decisions for themselves - but if they aren't given information ahead of time how can they make an informed decision about whether they can or can't handle certain material?

Yes, there are times when it should be common sense. For instance, enrolling in a course titled, "Violence Against Women," should be a big red flag to someone dealing with PTSD related to a sexual assault. But there are other times when it isn't so obvious and it would be a good idea to at least have a mention of potentially difficult topics in the syllabus - that way, students can decide for themselves whether or not they can handle the course material and they don't prevent the rest of the class from learning.

[Terrie]

And while I'm feeling ranty, ;), there's nothing wrong with a student deciding not to take a course because the topic is too stressful for them. It is no different from students at my college who decided not to be a bio major because Genetics was required and the course was well known to eat your life. (Seriously, relationships ended due to lack of time when people took Genetics). It's all about managing your resources of time and energy.

(Not aimed at anyone here, but this is an argument I've had with people when this topic comes up).

[Walking Cat Bed]

Simply put, a good syllabus tells a student what to expect from the class. If a student is blind-sided by something like genocide in your class, you're a crappy teacher.

I'm also annoyed at people who respond to concerns with "Well, if you really have a problem, you should be in therapy." Um, what if they ARE in therapy? Are people with legit mental illness supposed to stay home and not participate in society until they reach a certain level of "normal"? There's something very ableist in the that kind of thinking.

Accommodating disabilities is about giving people tools to navigate a society designed around "normal" people, not coddling them like eternal infants. Telling people people "Be aware the course contains X, Y and Z." is giving people a tool to make decisions. Saying "You can't have X, Y and Z" is coddling.

Exactly.

For example: my roommate does not like horror movies at all. In particular, any kind of torture is very triggering for him (as are most military/war themed movies). We've agreed that I won't watch horror movies when he's home.

I really enjoy horror movies, but I do not handle graphic sexual assault scenes well (or injury to eyes). I check the IMDB parent's guide for movies before I watch them, so I can more effectively manage what I'm exposed to.

In an academic setting, certain fields do not typically include graphic imagery; if I were, for example, in an algebra class, I would expect standard examples; train speeds, amounts of things, and so on. In a women's literature class, the content is different; life stories (fictional or nonfictional) often include suffering of various kinds. Graphic descriptions and depictions of that suffering should be indicated ahead of time, whether by a movie rating or instructor's note, so anyone who would have a very difficult time dealing with that content can either be prepared or avoid the content. See above, re: roommate and horror movies.

[Beb]

In another thread here, the fundie subject is snarked on frequently because of her blatant hypocrisy. This hypocrisy snark often includes her weight, because she holds her diet and fitness regimen as a standard for others.

Many had a problem with what they saw as "fat-shaming", and a few said the remarks about weight and appearance made them feel bad about themselves. I observed that they were personalizing the remarks, when the statements were not directed at them, at which time, I was harshly criticized for my remarks.

Obviously, after reading the articles about triggering and safe places, it does seem to be a valid (though crude) observation.

Life and environment is a constant series of decisions, and often, these words, images, etc.(triggers) that affect a person can be avoided by simply moving (in the case of this forum, for instance) to another topic. That would be similar to avoiding certain movies, reading material, images, and the like that might trigger an unwanted response.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Ah yes! Now we have reached the heart of the problem! The Zsu thread!

:roll: Sarcasm

@Beb, I can't see where people are saying you are right.

[Beb]

Ah yes! Now we have reached the heart of the problem! The Zsu thread!

:roll: Sarcasm

@Beb, I can't see where people are saying you are right.

Of course you can't.

I made a reply. I'm one person. That doesn't mean you've "discovered" the root of this topic. I'm not the one who posted it.

But, if I may, what if it were?

[Beb]

articles about triggering and safe places, it does seem to be a valid (though crude) observation.

Just a clarification......by "crude", I meant my observation of personalization was crude in comparison to the more eloquently expressed discussion here regarding triggers.

[PregnantPornStar]

Of course you can't.

I made a reply. I'm one person. That doesn't mean you've "discovered" the root of this topic. I'm not the one who posted it.

But, if I may, what if it were?

Truly, what if it were? It was not the intent and I really have no need to discuss the Zsu thread here. I already explained why I mentioned it. I wasn't picking on anyone, as it seems other people are clearly doing to select posters. It has been suggested I am trying to start stuff multiple times. Believe what you want and carry on the conversation without "stirring shit" and don't give me what you so believe I want. Why engage? It seems to be what you want it to be.

[sockinshoe]

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.

Okay so I actually am kind of in a position to comment on this. My significant other is a military kid who has known many people who never made it back. He also has PTSD (non combat-related). As a result, some classes and topics are very difficult for him. His solution is to talk to his profs after the first class to let them know that he has PTSD and may struggle with some of the topics. He has yet to encounter a prof who refused him accommodation.

I think profs should provide overviews of the themes discussed in their courses as part of their syllabus. Courses shouldn't necessarily need trigger warnings. Instead comments like "this course focuses on the poetry of Ovid, which often features vivid and intense depictions of sexual assault. Please see me/contact me ahead of time if you are not able to complete the readings/assignments so an alternate assignment can be arranged". I've seen that happen more and more. I think it's great that profs are willing to accommodate students who are triggered by certain material.

I have also have never met students who abuse these systems. I know there are horror stories, but I have never encountered any.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Someone directed me to this xojane article that responds to The Atlantic article: http://www.xojane.com/issues/trigger-warnings-coddling

I get the point about giving permission to leave the room/take a break if someone needs it. Girl 1 told me that teachers at her high school will do this. To a certain degree, I can also understand giving some warning that something is coming up, so that somebody can brace themselves and make a choice about how they will choose to deal with it.

I do remember appreciating that my best friend decided to inform me of her pregnancy by phone, a few hours before we were supposed to meet with a bunch of friends for dinner. She knew that I'd had a recent miscarriage. Telling me by phone gave me a chance to react in private, so I was prepared and had a smile when she made the big announcement to the group over dinner.

I'm left wondering, though - to what extent is it reasonable to expect explicit trigger warnings?

She gave an example of being triggered while playing a "casual game of Cards Against Humanity". I happen to love that game, but anyone who is the tiniest bit aware has to realize that it is going to be massively offensive and triggering. WHY would she be playing that game in the first place??

By the same token, can the general public reasonably assume what will and will not trigger someone? Sexual violence is only one type of trauma. Pregnancy, babies, children, mothers, fathers, holidays - all of these can be triggering for those who have struggled with infertility, pregnancy loss, loss of a child or loss of a parent.

A similar article: samanthapfield.com/2014/06/04/should-colleges-use-trigger-warnings/

She writes graphically about her experiences as an English student trying to cope with PTSD. It leaves me convinced that schools should encourage students to step out as needed, or identify themselves as trauma survivors and have any special needs recognized, and get some assistance if PTSD is interfering with their academic progress (for example, not penalizing them if a course needs to be dropped). I'd be hesitant, though, to say that allowing summaries instead of more intense analysis of a book would be okay. I'd say that you either say that it's okay to drop the class late, or you figure out how to extend deadlines so that someone has the ability to read for a longer period of time and process it fully.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Just a clarification......by "crude", I meant my observation of personalization was crude in comparison to the more eloquently expressed discussion here regarding triggers.

Or maybe by "crude" you meant "offensive" (because you know the fact that idiot is not currently associated with any mental illness doesn't mean it's not an offensive word)?

Quoting you from the other thread:

I think a person is an idiot to say "reading remarks about Zsu 's weight made me feel bad about myself", as was said in this topic of discussion.

Disclaimer: I don't advocate in any way any sort of thought policing nor snark policing. This said, I honestly don't know who you are to decide that it is stupid feeling in that way. She felt in that way and she said it. I don't recall people demanding to stop any fat-shaming or body-shaming for this sole reason. So much so that you were able to write whatever you wanted and I also was able to offend you calling you an idiot and an annoying pain in the ass in my answer to the post above.

Obviously I own what I write and I am ready to answer for it if someone feels to call me out on it. That's what you seem to not to accept. You are right full stop and if people dare say they feel differently they are idiots.

What's the problem if people say they feel uneasy about body shaming? What's the problem if they criticise you for it? For sure none can impose to you to stop, none even imposed to you (or me) to not offend. But also none can be asked to stop criticise you and your statements. Because that would be thought policing.

Also I don't see what that thread had in common with this. People know they are reading a snark board, it's clearly their problem to avoid triggering topics. But it's also not your problem if they want to express their feelings about it or if other people decide to respect their feelings and put trigger warnings or restrain themselves from fat-shaming. For sure none can demand the same from you, but also you cannot demand from people to not to criticise your remarks. Because it seems everything boils down to that: people harshly criticised you for saying that that poster was taking your remarks too personally, meanwhile you were right (as this thread should demonstrate, I still don't see how) and everyone else was wrong and mean to criticise you.

[Beb]

Or maybe by "crude" you meant "offensive" (because you know the fact that idiot is not currently associated with any mental illness doesn't mean it's not an offensive word)?

Quoting you from the other thread:

Disclaimer: I don't advocate in any way any sort of thought policing nor snark policing. This said, I honestly don't know who you are to decide that it is stupid feeling in that way. She felt in that way and she said it. I don't recall people demanding to stop any fat-shaming or body-shaming for this sole reason. So much so that you were able to write whatever you wanted and I also was able to offend you calling you an idiot and an annoying pain in the ass in my answer to the post above.

Obviously I own what I write and I am ready to answer for it if someone feels to call me out on it. That's what you seem to not to accept. You are right full stop and if people dare say they feel differently they are idiots.

What's the problem if people say they feel uneasy about body shaming? What's the problem if they criticise you for it? For sure none can impose to you to stop, none even imposed to you (or me) to not offend. But also none can be asked to stop criticise you and your statements. Because that would be thought policing.

Also I don't see what that thread had in common with this. People know they are reading a snark board, it's clearly their problem to avoid triggering topics. But it's also not your problem if they want to express their feelings about it or if other people decide to respect their feelings and put trigger warnings or restrain themselves from fat-shaming. For sure none can demand the same from you, but also you cannot demand from people to not to criticise your remarks. Because it seems everything boils down to that: people harshly criticised you for saying that that poster was taking your remarks too personally, meanwhile you were right (as this thread should demonstrate, I still don't see how) and everyone else was wrong and mean to criticise you.

LOL.....I mean, literally LOL!

If you use the word "idiot," what does it mean to you?

As I've said, the multiple insults thrown at me did not offend me. I did not apply them to myself. I did not take them personally, even though they obviously we're meant in that way and directed specifically at me. They were actually more for the satisfaction of the person who was issuing the insults.

As for the rest of your post....how can a person so blatantly miss the point? For instance, i don't use the word, 'idiot', and in the context of my post, it should have been very clear it was meant as sarcasm.

But really, when you refer to someone as an idiot, a moron, or something similar, exactly what does that mean to you?

[Whoosh]

But really, when you refer to someone as an idiot, a moron, or something similar, exactly what does that mean to you?

I realize this question was meant for someone else and I do hope she sees it and (if she so chooses) gives a response. That said, I am going to exercise my "right" to respond to statements on a discussion board while following the (remarkably few) rules of the community.

As I said in the other thread where you have been asking this same question - when *I* refer to someone as an "idiot" (or something quite similar) I mean it to say "you are acting a fool" or "you are willfully ignorant on this given topic". Another way of saying that is to say you are being intentionally obtuse or purposefully difficult in order to "win" a point. There's really lots of ways of saying it.

What do *I* NOT mean when I refer to someone as an "idiot" (or something quite similar)? I do NOT mean to state or imply or conjure up thoughts of people with neurodevelopment disorders characterized by significantly impaired intellectual or adaptive functioning.

So now I have said it twice and others have stated or implied that they agree with me. You yourself shared a definition from the dictionary that confirms that this is a known and commonly accepted use of the word (and YES I would say a dictionary is a valid source to look to when attempting to understand the commonly held definitions or meanings of words and of providing information on what various uses of a given word mean).

You seem bound and determined to assert your own personal understanding of what a given word or phrase means to the point that you not only blatantly ignore the thoughts and statements of others, you actually go so far as to make snarky sarcastic statements mocking the idea of looking to the DICTIONARY to help determine what a given word means and/or what the accepted and commonly understood usages are for a given term. :pink-shock: Given that reality, it really comes as no surprise that you would feel justified dictating how others should feel or react to a given situation. Obviously, it is in no way, shape or form your place to do these things but I would be an idiot, a fool, a dolt, and indeed a fuckwit to expect you to stop now.

As people (including myself) have been saying, you can type out and post whatever thoughts or opinions you want on this discussion board so long as you follow the (very few) rules of the community. Just remember, no one needs to agree with you. To add insult to injury , people can respond to or ignore statements they disagree with as they see fit providing they follow the (very few) rules of the community. Someone like me might even choose to reflect the tone and level of respect for others you use when posting right back at you when they respond. You can insist those who disagree with you are wrong - they can keep on keeping on just not caring about that. That's life with free speech and without thought control.

how can a person so blatantly miss the point?

The mind boggles

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Quoting myself from the other thread:

Actually idiot comes from Ancient Greek and originally it meant a private citizen not involved in the political life of his polis and so a bit naive. I feel free to use it when I deem it necessary.

If you find the topic interesting you can also take a look at this blog post

https://ewonago.wordpress.com/2008/08/0 ... and-idiot/

Also imbecille comes from in (diminutive prefix) plus baculum (walking aid) and it meant that someone's reasoning walked without the aid of logic or sense.

I don't see why the inappropriate use of insulting terms by doctors during modern medicine dark ages should influence the current use of said terms. Because illogicity and inability to comprehend is NOT a prerogative of mental illnesses (and often are not even required to make a diagnosis of mental illnesses) but are fairly common between mentally healthy folks.

As for the rest if you don't understand nuanced reasonings I cannot help.

[Beb]

Quoting myself from the other thread:

laPapessaGiovanna wrote:

Actually idiot comes from Ancient Greek and originally it meant a private citizen not involved in the political life of his polis and so a bit naive. I feel free to use it when I deem it necessary.

Yes, I know.

Is that what you mean when you use it?

EXAMPLE:

"PP is a private citizen not involved in the political life of his polis and so a bit naive."

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Yes, I know.

Is that what you mean when you use it?

EXAMPLE:

"PP is a private citizen not involved in the political life of his polis and so a bit naive."

No.

I say PP is aa dangerous imbecile whose unquestioned (by him) beliefs are completely fucked up.

[MatthewDuggar]

Aside from the Zsu drama, it does seem to make a huge difference when the body-shaming is directed at someone who's notorious for their scandals or overall situation.

This is over-dramatized, but the general gist is:

Someone will post: "That cardigan makes Anna look really fat!" suddenly everyone's triggered and scheduling therapy appointments.

Yet: "Josh is such a fat fucktard" - barely an eyelash is batted.

[polecat]

Suddenly I feel like I"m in another dimension. Why is drama from Zsu's thread bleeding over to one that seemingly has nothing to do with fat-shaming/body snarking?

But hey, you can make fun of anyone you want any way you want, including all those whiny fatties and their ridiculously delicate feelings (tic, if anyone isn't sure). Just know that you'll also be called out on it. Because that's how FJ rolls.

[2xx1xy1JD]

About the original article posted by the OP:

There is a distinction between being aware of things that will legitimately trigger trauma survivors (a real mental health issue) and giving students the general impression that they are entitled to be free from anything challenging or disturbing or even offensive.

That article wasn't really about legitimate use of trigger warnings. It was about what happens when a specific group claims super-sensitivity, while at the same time changing the rules of moral behavior and claiming that they are uniquely entitled to outrage and even violent responses. It reminded me a lot of my time at university.

I went to a school which treated political rallies like other schools treated football games. There was no partying, no sports frenzy, no beautiful campus with old buildings. There were lots of political groups and ethnic clashes and claims of outrage, along with professors with extreme views. In high school, I was interested in following politics, I read some feminist columnists and I considered myself to be left/liberal. I also considered myself to be a Zionist Jew, and visited Israel with my boyfriend right after high school and met his extended family. Then I started university as a political science major, ran into the Young Socialists telling me Israel was an apartheid state and acts of violence were valid resistance, and felt my world turn upside down. I had a small crisis of questioning all of my political and religious beliefs. It was not a remotely safe or comfortable feeling. There were times that I needed hang around the Jewish Students' Federation, or just debrief with my friends, to get centered again. The ultimate result for me, though, was a lot of personal growth. I learned how to research a topic to death, how to deconstruct arguments, how to argue back, how to recognize that even professors can make statements that are completely biased, misleading, ignorant or downright wrong. I learned that it's not enough to simply be middle of the road, that sometimes you need to find for yourself what the principled position is and be prepared to defend it when challenged. I learned that you can't simply follow a whole laundry list of positions based on a general political position, and that you sometimes need to evaluate each issue.

Those are the skills needed to address the situation in that article, and give some intellectual push-back.

ETA: I found this backstory to The Atlantic article interesting: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ry/399359/

[Curious]

Aside from the Zsu drama, it does seem to make a huge difference when the body-shaming is directed at someone who's notorious for their scandals or overall situation.

This is over-dramatized, but the general gist is:

Someone will post: "That cardigan makes Anna look really fat!" suddenly everyone's triggered and scheduling therapy appointments.

Yet: "Josh is such a fat fucktard" - barely an eyelash is batted.

I've already debunked this notion in the Zsu thread (which I notice that Beb seems to have conveniently missed in her continued rants on use of the words imbecile, idiot, moron etc and how fat-shaming is not called out routinely on FJ), but for those not reading that thread, here is my post again:

FTR, threads that call out fat shaming (notice they start in 2011, so this is nothing new):

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=942&p=19948&hilit=fat+shaming#p19948

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=2148&hilit=fat+shaming (a whole thread called Lay off Josh Duggar's weight)

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=3464&hilit=fat+shaming&start=60#p73824

viewtopic.php?f=81&t=4492&p=161209&hilit=fat+shaming#p161209

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6525&p=164139&hilit=fat+shaming#p164139

viewtopic.php?f=144&t=6875&hilit=fat+shaming

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=6960&hilit=fat+shaming

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7739&p=209089&hilit=fat+shaming#p209089

I can keep going for a long time as there are 45 pages in the search for fat shaming on FJ.

In relation there are 62 posts that match the word imbecile and 23 of those are in THIS thread. So in 4 years there have been about 39 posts out of over ONE MILLION that have used the word imbecile.

You just keep pounding that drum though. It certainly shows your intelligence and ability to understand both this forum's culture and the English language.

Notice that there is an ENTIRE thread related to Josh Duggar specifically in this list of examples. People have been calling out the fat shaming of Josh since 2011, ffs.

[Palimpsest]

I've found much of this thread interesting because FJ always rises to the challenge and make gold out of dross. Thanks to all you educators who addressed the issues beautifully, carefully and thoughtfully.

What I find disappointing about this thread is that people who have been called out on another thread want to continue the battle elsewhere. Ad infinitem.

Look at this way:

- You (general you) choose to participate on an internet forum. No-one is forcing you to participate.

- On that internet forum you are perhaps called out by others for being "offensive" or "mean" or "non-PC."

- You may choose to tell other people to get out of threads because you have the right to offend others ('cos it isn't against the rulz!)

- You may get all offended because other people tell you your views are suspect or unacceptable.

- You may choose to defend your position by denigrating or discounting other peoples' experiences by calling them "hypersensitive," and "coddled" and "PC."

- You may continue to choose to offend others deliberately. Because you can.

- You may choose to throw a shit-fit because you get called out (not banned) by starting (or invading) multiple other threads.

And you may still be continuing the battle and acting all butt-hurt because you were actually disagreed with?

I wonder whether some people might be happier if they can find a play-pen where their obnoxious views are in the majority to feel happy and fulfilled.

That's all. :roll:

[ADoyle90815]

[Rubyroo]

This is an înteresting subject. I have a lot of experiences with trigger warnings. But first, a little history.

The furthest back trigger warnings have been traced on the Internet is from a site called Bodies Under Seige which is a support site for those who self harm or self injure. I actually used to frequent this site so I was first exposed to trigger warnings in 2006 or 2007. The trigger warnings were only for things like extreme violence, eating disorders, rape, suicide and self injury. Serious things where reading a detailed description can put you in the same feeling, trigger you and possibly cause you to hurt yourself if you're in the wrong state of mind when you read it.

Now for an anecdote. I was in the LGBTQ group in my college and one Halloween we aired Rocky Horror Picture Show. I hate that movie, just my opinion, so I sat outside the screening room and occasionally refilled the snacks. I've sat through that movie once when I was 8 or 9 and haven't seen it since but I remembered the general premise. About 1/3 of the way through, I notice a girl run to the bathroom and a few minutes she returns to the movie. Then runs to the bathroom about 2 minutes later. I go into the bathroom to check in on her. She has serious PTSD from a childhood rape and there was an unconsensual sex scene in the movie that she wasn't prepared for and now she was super triggered and everyone was watching the movie. I refilled the snacks one more time and we went to her apartment and smoked some pot and talked which really helped her. We got back when the movie was over. She was triggered and removed herself, which is the appropriate way to react. But she also said if there had been a trigger warning before the movie, she could have prepared herself and not been bothered and could have enjoyed the night.

I used to hurt myself. The first episode of the first season of American Horror Story triggered me like no other. Personally, I just look away when I can't handle what is on screen but that scene bothered me a ton because all the sudden there was a girl cutting herself which made me want to do the same. Doggie see doggie do, right? Plus it reminded me of the feeling of relief..

I think the problem with all this is the proper way to deal with triggers. You don't stop the conversation, you remove yourself. The problem comes when people try to shut down conversations but trigger warnings are so important for self care to those with PTSD and similar issues. Serious issues that can cause you harm should have trigger warnings but they've been so overused it's scary.

[roddma]

Without having read all these comment, I agree society has gotten more PC and hypersensitive over trivial things. The inernet itself can be a 'safe space, becasue it allows you to say things you likely wouldnt say to a person's face. The LGTB works both ways. A person in favor of LGTB , may need a 'safe space' as not to hear a session focused on disagreement/cons since it's not PC to them. It's no just religious folks here that need 'safe spaces'. . Top comedians like Seinfeld and Chris Rock have stopped performing at colleges because of PC.

[Terrie]

You know, while I've seen examples of awareness of offensiveness and harm taken too far, I've seen a lot more examples of people crying "hypersensitive/PC" to shut down critique. It seems like simply pointing out "That's fucked up and offensive" is enough to get you labeled an "SJW." (A label that reminds me more and more of MRA complaints of "White knighting.")