Speaking of being PC...

[sockinshoe]

That is an example of selective indignation! How many times the incident of that faulty link is going to be used? And even if I had posted the link knowingly, that justifies the use of swear words, so suddenly we are no longer polite and nuanced? Moreover, the words were used long before I placed the infamous link.

Yes professional victim (I didn't use plurals), if I needed TWs for all my personal traumata, which I will not elaborate, because it is none of anyone's business there must be a sign next to my bed, the moment I wake up. I never claimed to be soooooo victimised by others and I never will, that is not in my nature. I am not a victim and I refuse to act like one.

It is not my idea not to use any swear words.

We would have all moved on by now if you didn't bring it up all the time. Gleefully referring to yourself as a "nazi" or "racist" is attention-seeking behaviour and draws attention to the "faulty link incident". It doesn't really garner you any sympathy; it never did. It's insulting and annoying and offensive. Also referring to someone who went through some difficult stuff as a "professional victim" doesn't help your case.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do. One minute, you're on the offense (literally), the next you're the target of a witch hunt. You may not use swear words, but your highly pejorative language is just as harmful. I never said you swore at others, I said you insulted them. You can disagree with the opinions, but it's just sloppy to resort to attacks on people's experiences.

[FundieFarmer]

What did I say to my patients? What do you know about how I treated my patients, you think the same as I speak to my beloved coFJers?

Expounding the differences in methods? I don't mean this in a rude way, but Google it. I don't feel like explaining anything at all. Not the infamous link, my PhD's nor my Professorship.

Of course I don't know what you said to your patients (and, never said as much), but since I've had a person in your profession say directly to me in counseling what you did here (and then some), I honestly don't really know what might have been said. That is why I shared my experience. If that's not the opinion you would have said professionally though you may believe it in private, that's great! Like I said, you're absolutely welcome to your opinion and I do get where it's coming from. I think that from my experience, I am fairly middle-of-the-road when it comes to the issue of TWs. Perhaps we really are on the same side of the coin in some ways, as I think you're saying that what you said here wasn't entirely employed in the counseling setting for you...this is just an opinion you hold & share on the board but not necessarily or in entirety in a professional setting.

I went ahead and googled (because I really am interested!) and I see pieces discussing cultural differences, but not differences in methods entirely. That seems to make sense to me, because from a layperson's point of view, I would think that the best methods for treating the disease would hold true universally, with some accommodations for culture. IE, if CBT is the best for a condition, I would assume that would hold universally true, though with modifications as needed per culture. I couldn't find anywhere that said otherwise, but I did find several links to articles on cultural competency that intimated sensitivity to international customs within the treatment plan. So I am understanding that perhaps, for example, CBT is still employed but you may be a bit more direct with patients than we traditionally would be here?

Edited because I learned things.

[latraviata]

This post may well go over like a lead balloon with many people, but I am gonna roll with it anyway. Although I have been internet diagnosed from across the pond as a "professional victim", I actually have a pretty thick skin and am prepared for all manner of responses (or perhaps none at all).

I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that there are cultural differences when it comes to attitudes and opinions about things like trigger warnings. I think it is worthwhile for everyone to try to keep that in mind and to recognize that open and honest discussions about how certain issues are viewed across cultures can be great and a huge opportunity to learn and to expand our views.

That said, I am fairly certain that depression and PTSD are recognized as two entirely different disorders - even in Europe. When I encounter a purported PhD level retired mental health professional who seems incapable of recognizing or acknowledging the difference between these two very different disorders, I tend to think there is something more going on than mere cultural differences or differences in how one views a particular issue. When similar behavior occurs across several topics, that hypothesis becomes stronger. If I were conversing with someone with very little knowledge about mental health issues, I might point out the fact that the person confused the two disorders and try to explain the difference between the two. When someone has clearly been exposed to this information and (one would assume) had a solid understanding of the differences in the past and yet currently seems unable to recognize the distinction between the two, I tend to think that lack of knowledge or awareness is not the issue and there is something else going on.

In that type of situation (being the victim coddling sap that I am), I typically tend to cut the person some slack when it comes to other issues. I am not saying that we should suddenly pretend that PTSD and depression are the same thing or that it is suddenly OK to post hate speech, but my reaction to such behavior is informed by my larger understanding of what might be going on.

Just my hypersensitive two cents based on a few months worth of reading on FJ. No one needs to agree or care.

Where does that come from???

In the Zsu is fat topic, you mentioned a depression. if memory serves. The sad story of your fiancee came later. again if memory serves.

FYI http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/tc/p ... n-overview

[polecat]

"Never be afraid to expose a weakness in yourself. Exposing a weakness is the beginning of strength."

~Robert Anthony

"Thou shalt not only fly, but also take others on thy wings; for thy strength is given thee wherewith to help the weak."

~Ivan Panin

And,

"Most of us, I believe, admire strength. It's something we tend to respect in others, desire for ourselves, and wish for our children. Sometimes, though, I wonder if we confuse strength and other words--like aggression and even violence. Real strength is neither male nor female; but is, quite simply, one of the finest characteristics that any human being can possess."

~Fred Rogers

[latraviata]

"Never be afraid to expose a weakness in yourself. Exposing a weakness is the beginning of strength."

~Robert Anthony

"Thou shalt not only fly, but also take others on thy wings; for thy strength is given thee wherewith to help the weak."

~Ivan Panin

And,

"Most of us, I believe, admire strength. It's something we tend to respect in others, desire for ourselves, and wish for our children. Sometimes, though, I wonder if we confuse strength and other words--like aggression and even violence. Real strength is neither male nor female; but is, quite simply, one of the finest characteristics that any human being can possess."

~Fred Rogers

This is an aspect of American culture that I truly dislike, with an emphasis on the aspect. These damn quotes or inspiration quotes. Even my most sophisticated and liberal American friends decorate their FB pages with that garbage on a daily basis. My friends from this side of the pond remove them immediately and so do I.

[polecat]

This is an aspect of American culture that I truly dislike, with an emphasis on the aspect. These damn quotes or inspiration quotes. Even my most sophisticated and liberal American friends decorate their FB pages with that garbage on a daily basis. My friends from this side of the pond remove them immediately and so do I.

It's an aspect of American culture that I truly enjoy. Feel free to foe since you can't exactly remove it here.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Of course I don't know what you said to your patients (and, never said as much), but since I've had a person in your profession say directly to me in counseling what you did here (and then some), I honestly don't really know what might have been said. That is why I shared my experience. If that's not the opinion you would have said professionally though you may believe it in private, that's great! Like I said, you're absolutely welcome to your opinion and I do get where it's coming from. I think that from my experience, I am fairly middle-of-the-road when it comes to the issue of TWs. Perhaps we really are on the same side of the coin in some ways, as I think you're saying that what you said here wasn't entirely employed in the counseling setting for you...this is just an opinion you hold & share on the board but not necessarily or in entirety in a professional setting.

I went ahead and googled (because I really am interested!) and I see pieces discussing cultural differences, but not differences in methods entirely. That seems to make sense to me, because from a layperson's point of view, I would think that the best methods for treating the disease would hold true universally, with some accommodations for culture. IE, if CBT is the best for a condition, I would assume that would hold universally true, though with modifications as needed per culture. I couldn't find anywhere that said otherwise, but I did find several links to articles on cultural competency that intimated sensitivity to international customs within the treatment plan. So I am understanding that perhaps, for example, CBT is still employed but you may be a bit more direct with patients than we traditionally would be here?

Edited because I learned things.

If you are interested in this topic and want to know more you can check this

https://www.sensorimotorpsychotherapy.org/about.html

I am doing some research on the educational aspects of it. I just finished a experimentation that lasted some months with laboratories to help people to increase their body awareness and at the same time work with their psychologist (CBT trained) to understand trauma related issues surfacing through their body's sensations and more importantly to find in their own body some of the resources they need to cope better. It is very important to work on the body because most times the trauma was a physical one and so the body holds the worst of the scars and the memory of what happened. I find it expecially useful for very brainy people that tend to dismiss and demean their trauma and distance themselves from it taking a reasonig, cold and emotionless approach. And also for people who, on the contrary, don't have the mental abilities (due to mental retardation or abuse of neurotoxic substances) to process their trauma through words only with traditional CBT psychotherapy. To obtain this I am finding particularly useful some techniques of the Feldenkrais Method of body awareness. You can find info about it here.

http://www.feldenkrais.com/

[Whoosh]

Where does that come from???

In the Zsu is fat topic, you mentioned a depression. if memory serves. The sad story of your fiancee came later. again if memory serves.

FYI http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/tc/p ... n-overview

When did I do that, exactly? If you could provide a link or a quote to where I mentioned "my depression" that would be great. In the Zsu thread I pretty much just talked about the word idiot and its synonyms.

In fact, this is an example of what I was trying to say in my last post.

Not that it matters, but depression can lead to weight gain - as can the medications sometimes prescribed for depression. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing that link up if someone did. There is no need to go insulting anyone else here in your misguided attempt to insult me.

[FundieFarmer]

If you are interested in this topic and want to know more you can check this

https://www.sensorimotorpsychotherapy.org/about.html

I am doing some research on the educational aspects of it. I just finished a experimentation that lasted some months with laboratories to help people to increase their body awareness and at the same time work with their psychologist (CBT trained) to understand trauma related issues surfacing through their body's sensations and more importantly to find in their own body some of the resources they need to cope better. It is very important to work on the body because most times the trauma was a physical one and so the body holds the worst of the scars and the memory of what happened. I find it expecially useful for very brainy people that tend to dismiss and demean their trauma and distance themselves from it taking a reasonig, cold and emotionless approach. And also for people who, on the contrary, don't have the mental abilities (due to mental retardation or abuse of neurotoxic substances) to process their trauma through words only with traditional CBT psychotherapy. To obtain this I am finding particularly useful some techniques of the Feldenkrais Method of body awareness. You can find info about it here.

http://www.feldenkrais.com/

Wow! Thank you for the link. That's a really cool project. I will look into them when I have more time, and may come back to it. My experience would say your findings are spot on.

If you don't mind sharing, what was the coolest thing that you learned or felt about the project?

Gosh. I'm learning so much from you guys. #NerdStatus

[Palimpsest]

Wow! Thank you for the link. That's a really cool project. I will look into them when I have more time, and may come back to it. My experience would say your findings are spot on.

If you don't mind sharing, what was the coolest thing that you learned or felt about the project?

Gosh. I'm learning so much from you guys. #NerdStatus

That is really interesting research, LaPapessa. Thanks for telling us about it. :)

[Terrie]

 

I have had things "trigger" me. Yet, I never once faulted anyone else for that or even considered it could be the fault of anyone else. In fact, I think it needs to be noted that in some situations, the fault and responsibility really lies with whom caused harm to the person who has a potential to be "triggered" I would even argue that TWs are taking responsibility away from abusers. Obviously not all things involve an abuser, but in some cases, they do.

Would you argue that people using wheelchairs after being hit by a drunk driver are taking responsibility away from the drunk?

[PregnantPornStar]

On 10/21/2015 at 3:05 PM, Terrie said:

On 10/14/2015 at 7:18 PM, PregnantPornStar said:

FundieFarmer said:

 

I have had things "trigger" me. Yet, I never once faulted anyone else for that or even considered it could be the fault of anyone else. In fact, I think it needs to be noted that in some situations, the fault and responsibility really lies with whom caused harm to the person who has a potential to be "triggered" I would even argue that TWs are taking responsibility away from abusers. Obviously not all things involve an abuser, but in some cases, they do.

Would you argue that people using wheelchairs after being hit by a drunk driver are taking responsibility away from the drunk?

Huh? How on earth do you get that I was saying that?

[Destiny]

  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please turn off your tapatalk signature.

Me > Settings > Signature > turn the switch off.

[Terrie]

 

I have had things "trigger" me. Yet, I never once faulted anyone else for that or even considered it could be the fault of anyone else. In fact, I think it needs to be noted that in some situations, the fault and responsibility really lies with whom caused harm to the person who has a potential to be "triggered" I would even argue that TWs are taking responsibility away from abusers. Obviously not all things involve an abuser, but in some cases, they do.

 

Would you argue that people using wheelchairs after being hit by a drunk driver are taking responsibility away from the drunk?

 

 

Huh? How on earth do you get that I was saying that

Pretty easily, actually.If triggers are the fault of the abuser, then surely using a wheelchair is the fault of the drunk. And if accommodations are taking away responsibility, the surely wheelchairs are taking responsibility away from drunk drivers. Because there are only two ways your comment makes any sense. 1) You have completely missed the portion of the conversation of how TWs are an accommodation and basic tool for people with certain types of mental illness/disability or 2) You think that needing accommodation is inherently inferior to not needing one. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

 

I have had things "trigger" me. Yet, I never once faulted anyone else for that or even considered it could be the fault of anyone else. In fact, I think it needs to be noted that in some situations, the fault and responsibility really lies with whom caused harm to the person who has a potential to be "triggered" I would even argue that TWs are taking responsibility away from abusers. Obviously not all things involve an abuser, but in some cases, they do.

 

Would you argue that people using wheelchairs after being hit by a drunk driver are taking responsibility away from the drunk?

 

 

Huh? How on earth do you get that I was saying that

Pretty easily, actually.If triggers are the fault of the abuser, then surely using a wheelchair is the fault of the drunk. And if accommodations are taking away responsibility, the surely wheelchairs are taking responsibility away from drunk drivers. Because there are only two ways your comment makes any sense. 1) You have completely missed the portion of the conversation of how TWs are an accommodation and basic tool for people with certain types of mental illness/disability or 2) You think that needing accommodation is inherently inferior to not needing one. 

Many people think on the lines of the second option. I think it's a bit like a macho complex.

[Terrie]

 

I have had things "trigger" me. Yet, I never once faulted anyone else for that or even considered it could be the fault of anyone else. In fact, I think it needs to be noted that in some situations, the fault and responsibility really lies with whom caused harm to the person who has a potential to be "triggered" I would even argue that TWs are taking responsibility away from abusers. Obviously not all things involve an abuser, but in some cases, they do.

 

Would you argue that people using wheelchairs after being hit by a drunk driver are taking responsibility away from the drunk?

 

 

Huh? How on earth do you get that I was saying that

Pretty easily, actually.If triggers are the fault of the abuser, then surely using a wheelchair is the fault of the drunk. And if accommodations are taking away responsibility, the surely wheelchairs are taking responsibility away from drunk drivers. Because there are only two ways your comment makes any sense. 1) You have completely missed the portion of the conversation of how TWs are an accommodation and basic tool for people with certain types of mental illness/disability or 2) You think that needing accommodation is inherently inferior to not needing one. 

Many people think on the lines of the second option. I think it's a bit like a macho complex.

Agreed. There's this attitude that people with disabilities are more "successful" or "normal" if they need fewer accommodations. The same people tend to view accommodations in how they affect other people, not the disabled person. Can you imagine any other group where it was generally accepted to view them having their needs met by how it affects other people? Yes, fundies often imply that women should put men's convenience ahead of their own needs, but even in that case, they coach it in less than explicit language. Only with the disabled do people openly complain about people's NEEDS getting in their way. 

[PregnantPornStar]

I

 

I have had things "trigger" me. Yet, I never once faulted anyone else for that or even considered it could be the fault of anyone else. In fact, I think it needs to be noted that in some situations, the fault and responsibility really lies with whom caused harm to the person who has a potential to be "triggered" I would even argue that TWs are taking responsibility away from abusers. Obviously not all things involve an abuser, but in some cases, they do.

 

Would you argue that people using wheelchairs after being hit by a drunk driver are taking responsibility away from the drunk?

 

 

Huh? How on earth do you get that I was saying that

Pretty easily, actually.If triggers are the fault of the abuser, then surely using a wheelchair is the fault of the drunk. And if accommodations are taking away responsibility, the surely wheelchairs are taking responsibility away from drunk drivers. Because there are only two ways your comment makes any sense. 1) You have completely missed the portion of the conversation of how TWs are an accommodation and basic tool for people with certain types of mental illness/disability or 2) You think that needing accommodation is inherently inferior to not needing one. 

Many people think on the lines of the second option. I think it's a bit like a macho complex.

A few things...

 Comparing Trigger Warnings to wheelchair ramps would be more fitting.  That ramp would serve as a tool that others provide to wheelchair users so they can access places that they would not be able to access otherwise.  The ramp would not limit others being able to access said places.  It would also be completely and utterly unreasonable to expect wheelchair users to provide ramps in all places they need to access. 

Trigger warnings are NOT the same thing.  Someone with PTSD, for example, may use a trigger warning as a "tool", however, that tool is limiting others speech (unlike ramps, which are not limiting access of others).  A wheelchair user has no other means to access certain places without a ramp. A person with PTSD does have other tools they can use.  Be it support groups, mental health providers, etc.  All of which they can provide for themselves (starting a group, paying for a mental health provider, etc) or have others provide for them (go to a established support group, use health care/insurance for mental health providers, etc) 

It is perfectly acceptable to blame a drunk driver for causing one to need a wheelchair, as it is perfectly acceptable to blame a rapist for causing PTSD.  When you are expecting people to limit their discussion, you are limiting ability because you feel someone is too fragile/inferior, and unable to have a full conversation. Not providing a wheelchair ramp would ALSO be suggesting that the wheelchair user's access to said establishment is inferior to your needs.  It is rather un-american to assume others are not deserving of being treated as equals who can participate in what they see fit and make choices for themselves or to access an establishment that they want to access.  I have said this in previous posts, one great thing about "Western Ideals" is equality. Americans tend to be REALLY good at this in a LOT of areas (while our immigration process is not perfect, we certainly don't see those who hold a US passport to NOT be an American.  No matter where they are from, and thus accept that they are equally capable of the "American Dream", to go to university, to build a business, to go to school, etc) It isn't about being "normal" or "successful", it is about being equal and treated as an equal, not treating those with ANY disabilities as inferior.

By framing more public spaces, from the Internet to the college classroom, as full of infinite yet ill-defined hazards, trigger warnings encourage us to think of ourselves as more weak and fragile than we really are. 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116842/trigger-warnings-have-spread-blogs-college-classes-thats-bad

 

[Terrie]

When you are expecting people to limit their discussion, you are limiting ability because you feel someone is too fragile/inferior, and unable to have a full conversation.

How do TWs prevent people from speaking? You keep claiming this, and it's completely contrary from what other people have repeatedly to what others have said. Do trigger warnings magically pick people up and force them out of the room? In fact, I specifically said that it was up to the individual to make decisions for themselves, and that TWS provide the information they need to make those decisions, and that preventing people from participating in discussion on the grounds that someone else thinks they can't handle it is ableist. 

 

[Whoosh]

Also, doesn't the ADA pretty much require ramps in public places UNLESS it is impracticable?  Of course, people don't NEED those ramps.  They could use other tools like physical therapy and will power or prayer.  If those things don't work, they could always have someone carry them where they need to go.  Or they could just stay away - right?

When you are expecting people to limit their discussion, you are limiting ability because you feel someone is too fragile/inferior, and unable to have a full conversation.

How do TWs prevent people from speaking? You keep claiming this, and it's completely contrary from what other people have repeatedly to what others have said. Do trigger warnings magically pick people up and force them out of the room? In fact, I specifically said that it was up to the individual to make decisions for themselves, and that TWS provide the information they need to make those decisions, and that preventing people from participating in discussion on the grounds that someone else thinks they can't handle it is ableist. 

 

This.  I am really not seeing where anyone is advocating for censorship in any way.  Continually claiming otherwise with no proof or evidence of such is simply a false argument.

[FundieFarmer]

Someone with PTSD, for example, may use a trigger warning as a "tool", however, that tool is limiting others speech (unlike ramps, which are not limiting access of others).

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Just because you put a TW before something doesn't mean you have to change what you were originally going to say. There's nothing limiting about a TW, whatsoever.

[church_of_dog]

When you are expecting people to limit their discussion, you are limiting ability because you feel someone is too fragile/inferior, and unable to have a full conversation.

How do TWs prevent people from speaking? You keep claiming this, and it's completely contrary from what other people have repeatedly to what others have said. Do trigger warnings magically pick people up and force them out of the room? In fact, I specifically said that it was up to the individual to make decisions for themselves, and that TWS provide the information they need to make those decisions, and that preventing people from participating in discussion on the grounds that someone else thinks they can't handle it is ableist. 

 

PPS, please address this.  I've seen people asking for weeks now why you are talking about censorship or limiting discussion.  I think it's quite possible that there is a situation of misunderstanding here and if that's the case it could be easily resolved if you would just address this.

Can you please spell out, clearly, how you think trigger warnings limit/censor/repress expression in any way?  Maybe give an example?

I think what most people are saying is that trigger warnings give those who might be susceptible to being triggered, an opportunity to choose to remove themselves from the conversation if staying would cause them distress.  Alternatively, a warning gives them a *heads-up* opportunity to prepare themselves mentally to hear potentially triggering things without it catching them by surprise -- in that case the TW actually facilitates them *remaining* in the conversation.

As I've read it, this is what others think too and they have been trying to figure out what your interpretation is that seems to come to such a different conclusion that words like "censor" and "limit" apply.

[browncoatslytherin]

When you are expecting people to limit their discussion, you are limiting ability because you feel someone is too fragile/inferior, and unable to have a full conversation.

How do TWs prevent people from speaking? You keep claiming this, and it's completely contrary from what other people have repeatedly to what others have said. Do trigger warnings magically pick people up and force them out of the room? In fact, I specifically said that it was up to the individual to make decisions for themselves, and that TWS provide the information they need to make those decisions, and that preventing people from participating in discussion on the grounds that someone else thinks they can't handle it is ableist. 

 

PPS, please address this.  I've seen people asking for weeks now why you are talking about censorship or limiting discussion.  I think it's quite possible that there is a situation of misunderstanding here and if that's the case it could be easily resolved if you would just address this.

Can you please spell out, clearly, how you think trigger warnings limit/censor/repress expression in any way?  Maybe give an example?

I think what most people are saying is that trigger warnings give those who might be susceptible to being triggered, an opportunity to choose to remove themselves from the conversation if staying would cause them distress.  Alternatively, a warning gives them a *heads-up* opportunity to prepare themselves mentally to hear potentially triggering things without it catching them by surprise -- in that case the TW actually facilitates them *remaining* in the conversation.

As I've read it, this is what others think too and they have been trying to figure out what your interpretation is that seems to come to such a different conclusion that words like "censor" and "limit" apply.

this so much. just because some people may choose to leave the discussion or limit their own interactions, it does not mean the discussion itself is curtailed in any way whatsoever. it still happens, there's no reason i can see to assume it's shut down in any way.

giving somebody a heads up via an appropriate trigger warning is, to me, just common courtesy (which i think is unfortunately not so common these days). to me, it's just a part of being a nice and decent person to other people, and if someone refuses to utilize a helpful tool that helps other people, takes very little effort on their part, and does not affect them or their voice in any way...i think that speaks volumes as to the type of person they are. jmo.

[PregnantPornStar]

When you are expecting people to limit their discussion, you are limiting ability because you feel someone is too fragile/inferior, and unable to have a full conversation.

How do TWs prevent people from speaking? You keep claiming this, and it's completely contrary from what other people have repeatedly to what others have said. Do trigger warnings magically pick people up and force them out of the room? In fact, I specifically said that it was up to the individual to make decisions for themselves, and that TWS provide the information they need to make those decisions, and that preventing people from participating in discussion on the grounds that someone else thinks they can't handle it is ableist.  

PPS, please address this.  I've seen people asking for weeks now why you are talking about censorship or limiting discussion.  I think it's quite possible that there is a situation of misunderstanding here and if that's the case it could be easily resolved if you would just address this.Can you please spell out, clearly, how you think trigger warnings limit/censor/repress expression in any way?  Maybe give an example?

I think what most people are saying is that trigger warnings give those who might be susceptible to being triggered, an opportunity to choose to remove themselves from the conversation if staying would cause them distress.  Alternatively, a warning gives them a *heads-up* opportunity to prepare themselves mentally to hear potentially triggering things without it catching them by surprise -- in that case the TW actually facilitates them *remaining* in the conversation.

As I've read it, this is what others think too and they have been trying to figure out what your interpretation is that seems to come to such a different conclusion that words like "censor" and "limit" apply.

this so much. just because some people may choose to leave the discussion or limit their own interactions, it does not mean the discussion itself is curtailed in any way whatsoever. it still happens, there's no reason i can see to assume it's shut down in any way.

giving somebody a heads up via an appropriate trigger warning is, to me, just common courtesy (which i think is unfortunately not so common these days). to me, it's just a part of being a nice and decent person to other people, and if someone refuses to utilize a helpful tool that helps other people, takes very little effort on their part, and does not affect them or their voice in any way...i think that speaks volumes as to the type of person they are. jmo.

I am going to preface all of this by saying I have not been ignoring you. I was helping with homework, reading Harry Potter, and trying to inhale as much soup and local honey, along with wine and allergy meds. I have never in my life experienced allergies as badly as I have in Kentucky. I have lived quite a few places and traveled a lot. This, is ridiculous. I am a mess. Wine, allergies and antihistamines probably are not the best combo for me to have any form of intelligent discussion, but here goes...but truly, forgive me for rambling. As I am obviously doing

Firstly, I am not disagreeing that a trigger warning doesn't require anyone to leave a discussion or that it "necessarily" means a conversation cannot happen. However, by saying "You are free to say whatever you want, BUT..." You are limiting speech by saying it can only be done in a certain way (such as by prefacing with a trigger warning).

Many commenters are taking a very narrow view on what TWs entail. My general opinion is that while you may not need to preface a discussion with a TW and don't need to censor how graphic you are with your speech, it is generally the "polite" thing to speak in an intelligent manner, hence, likely being at least somewhat sensitive. I don't think anyone should be required to do this. Requiring to do something in a certain way means there are limits. I don't know how more simply I can put that.

An example would be the professor from UC Santa Barbara who felt "triggered" by anti-abortion signs, ended up vandalizing them and assaulting protestors. She was pregnant at the time and claimed this is why it was upsetting to her. (Short version of the story)

While I absolutely detest anti-abortion advocates protesting, I would never, ever...in a million years, limit them from speech. Does that mean I don't think they are assholes? Nope. I will even say it is insensitive and manipulative. Still, freedom of speech and expression should not be limited. Speech is GOOD. It means we can discuss our views that we are passionate about without physically harming anyone.

https://reason.com/archives/2014/05/27/trigger-warnings-on-campus-arent-just-fu/1

Additionally, there is nothing wrong wit giving a heads up if you WANT, but requiring a TW is not okay, because again, you are limiting speech. Also, expecting people to preface with a trigger warning WILL, in some cases, deter individuals from contributing to discussions all together, for fear of offending. Nobody should ever fear speaking. In fact, people should also learn to accept criticism of their speech. If you are running around campus with pictures of aborted fetuses, don't be shocked or offended when opposing views are thrown out at you.

[PregnantPornStar]

Also, doesn't the ADA pretty much require ramps in public places UNLESS it is impracticable?  Of course, people don't NEED those ramps.  They could use other tools like physical therapy and will power or prayer.  If those things don't work, they could always have someone carry them where they need to go.  Or they could just stay away - right?

When you are expecting people to limit their discussion, you are limiting ability because you feel someone is too fragile/inferior, and unable to have a full conversation.

How do TWs prevent people from speaking? You keep claiming this, and it's completely contrary from what other people have repeatedly to what others have said. Do trigger warnings magically pick people up and force them out of the room? In fact, I specifically said that it was up to the individual to make decisions for themselves, and that TWS provide the information they need to make those decisions, and that preventing people from participating in discussion on the grounds that someone else thinks they can't handle it is ableist. 

 

This.  I am really not seeing where anyone is advocating for censorship in any way.  Continually claiming otherwise with no proof or evidence of such is simply a false argument.

Right, because, you know, expecting individuals to rely on prayer, which has no scientific evidence whatsoever, to help, is a reasonable snarky defense. Or Physical therapy to help an amputee. Or to expect other individuals to carry them up the stairs. So their inability to say, register to vote, seek medical care, access a library is less of a concern or even equal to someone being given a TW for The Great Gatsby

Because they can't google the themes themselves?

I thought you were going to "foe" me or something?

[Whoosh]

I

 A person with PTSD does have other tools they can use.  Be it support groups, mental health providers, etc.  All of which they can provide for themselves (starting a group, paying for a mental health provider, etc) or have others provide for them (go to a established support group, use health care/insurance for mental health providers, etc) 

 

 

Please provide ANY support or evidence for the this bizarre claim that "other tools" available to people with PTSD will somehow eliminate the benefits of having trigger warnings as a tool.  Not just for some people, but for ALL people with PTSD - even the most severe.  As people have been saying, some issues that result in people appreciating trigger warnings ARE treatable (over TIME - should they isolate until "fixed"?) while others are NOT and may well be with the person for life.

 

ETA - never said I was "foeing" you.  Pretty sure I said something like "ignoring for now".