Red vs Blue takes on Trigger Warnings

[Redd the Sock]

I appreciate your work ethic, but an appeal to your own authority mixed with more moralizing is still not a valid argument to make. In any case, I really doubt you expect more from those you work with than they can reasonably provide. You'll press someone to get back on a horse, but not to do handstands on them. For some people, since triggers for their PTSD do not normally arise, content warnings can be helpful.

The argument, "Well I'm doing you a favor buddy", however you try to contextualize it with your own work, is a shitty argument.

Am I reading that right? It looks like you're trying to say experience in a relevant field is invalid because reasons.

You can call my argument shitty all you want, but between work and personal life I've seen a world of different between those treated like then can do something hard, and those treated like they can't or shouldn't have to. As I said, guess which turns out happier, more confident, and more self sufficient.

 

[cleric of the order]

Malingerers should not taint the reputations of the genuinely ill, anymore than unemployed whiners should taint the reputation of people at work who ask for "NSFW" tags. Neither should be required, but since both are trivially easy, why not just be accommodating instead of a dick?

I never suggested that, or at least that was not given intention
let me refer you to this.

I'm with grif on this.
In cases of ptsd people can be triggered by more then just fucking topic matter yeah, like sensory stimuli.

I do not doubt people with PTSD get triggered, rather from what I understand i is an unconscious-subjective response.
I may have been a bit lax in communication (again for good reason, losing a well structured couple hundred words to my 4th mouse button is infuriating), PTSD can be triggered by anything that resembles or reminds one of the trauma, that can include a sound, that has no reliance or even be cognizant the stimuli (from what I have been led to believe).
What a person with PTSD needs is a good neuroplastic treatment, psychiatric help, etc,etc to lessen the emotional connections, to remove the pain of the event.

In that sense I find it odd to cater to a entirely subjective experience in any general activity of this kind.
If what you have there is explicit as far as I understand simply indicating the given thing is explicit is more than necessary.
I had a much longer diatribe on the subject but it come to this, FOR WHAT PURPOSE.
When someone clicks something explicit, it forms a social contract, you click on it and you understand that what you are getting into is explicit.
On the other hand, triggers can be exceedingly subjective, actually they are completely subjective by nature.
It goes beyond general consensus.
It becomes the specific applied to the general, in what amounts to a waste of man hours, which as far as I understand does not actually fix the actual problem but treats the symptoms.
I'd rather see social programmes and goverment funding for giving these people treatment then this runabout take place.

As for your accommodation comment, I must stress something.
If I needed any accommodation I would prefer to have it be a method that raises me up, fixes my problem the best it can.
And I do specific need accommodations, I'm an aspie.
And that is what I get.
I would not rather however to be treated like an infant, like I have been as well.
That is as far as I have been lead to believe trigger warnings to be.
It does take the persons feelings int question but it's an empty gesture, that person will still have those triggers.
Those triggers aren't dealt with effectively, as I would like to indicate (to further underline the absurdity, there can be so many possible subjective triggers that a person might not even be aware of that. It is literally impossible to deal with every trigger.)
To truly accommodate someone you need to take into account the problem and rationally deal with the problem, helping people isn't very clean and pathological altruism will not solve anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hence I find trigger warnings do more harm than good in the real world as in letting someone avoid a trigger, it also removes the consequences of being triggered, providing less incentive to learn to cope.

Whose decision is that to make, though?

When you say that "letting" someone avoid something they don't like is a bad idea, isn't that getting into a very murky area?

It becomes the specific applied to the general, in what amounts to a waste of man hours, which as far as I understand does not actually fix the actual problem but treats the symptoms.
I'd rather see social programmes and goverment funding for giving these people treatment then this runabout take place.

That's a terrible false dichotomy. The people who are typing "trigger warning: rape" (and wasting oh so many precious man hours doing so, it seems) aren't generally the ones that decide on how government funding is spent.

(to further underline the absurdity, there can be so many possible subjective triggers that a person might not even be aware of that. It is literally impossible to deal with every trigger.)

The idea that people shouldn't bother with trigger warnings because they won't be able to deal with eveyr trigger is rather absurd, yes.

 

[MatParker116]

The idea that people shouldn't bother with trigger warnings because they won't be able to deal with eveyr trigger is rather absurd, yes.

Actually according to an internationally recognised trauma expert it kind of is:

?There would be no point,? he said. ?You cannot get a person to avoid triggers in their day-to-day lives. It would be impossible.? But, given a chance to think it over, Basoglu went much further than that. ?The media should actually ? quite the contrary? Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. ?Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That?s not good. ?Exposure to trauma reminders provides an opportunity to gain control over them. This is the essence of the treatment that we are using to help trauma survivors. It involves encouraging the patient not to avoid reminders of trauma, but in fact to make a point of exposing themselves to reminders of trauma so that they can develop a tolerance. ?I liken it to a vaccination. You get a small dose of the virus so that the body can develop immunity towards it. Psychologically it?s the same phenomenon.?

 

[Thaluikhain]

The idea that people shouldn't bother with trigger warnings because they won't be able to deal with eveyr trigger is rather absurd, yes.

Actually according to an internationally recognised trauma expert it kind of is:

?There would be no point,? he said. ?You cannot get a person to avoid triggers in their day-to-day lives. It would be impossible.? But, given a chance to think it over, Basoglu went much further than that. ?The media should actually ? quite the contrary? Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. ?Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That?s not good. ?Exposure to trauma reminders provides an opportunity to gain control over them. This is the essence of the treatment that we are using to help trauma survivors. It involves encouraging the patient not to avoid reminders of trauma, but in fact to make a point of exposing themselves to reminders of trauma so that they can develop a tolerance. ?I liken it to a vaccination. You get a small dose of the virus so that the body can develop immunity towards it. Psychologically it?s the same phenomenon.?

Sure, the media can encourage people to expose themselves to triggers, but it should remain people's own choice as to whether they want to do it at any given particular time or not.

 

[maninahat]

Third time's a charm. Or is that fourth?

Anyway, So does anyone believe the people complaining about trigger warnings on behalf of people suffering from PSTD actually suffer from PSTD?

Cause I have a suspicion this is another "activists" being offended on behalf of other people and speaking over them. That is what annoys people more than the trigger warnings themselves.

Why would I need to have PTSD to be considerate to people with PTSD?

If the prevailing advice is that trigger warnings are of some use to people with PTSD, then I don't see the issue with people wanting them to be used more. I can even appreciate people getting annoyed about it when they aren't used. Even if we assume people demand trigger warnings for wholly arrogant or self-centred reasons, the result is still a good thing - more trigger warnings are used, for the benefit of people with PTSD.

It's like complaining about people for giving to charity for the wrong reasons. even if some guy gives money to charity just to look good, the net effect is still that the charity gets the money it needs.

 

[wulf3n]

If the prevailing advice is that trigger warnings are of some use to people with PTSD, then I don't see the issue with people wanting them to be used more. I can even appreciate people getting annoyed about it when they aren't used.

I believe some people just don't like others raising an issue on their behalf, especially when method of delivery is somewhat zealous.

OT: There's nothing inherently wrong with trigger warnings if people choose to include them of their own free will. It's pretty innocuous, though maybe that's just an Australian thing, as TV used to (i don't know if it still does) have essentially a trigger warning (though more of a content advisory displayed before the show started) for any show rated higher than PG.

The only problem I have is what a trigger warning, as opposed to just a plain old content advisory says about the attitudes of society. Content Advisory places the responsibility on the individual for their actions, where as a trigger warning essentially puts the responsibility on the content creator. I prefer content advisory.

 

[Frankster]

Poor comparison, trigger warnings are ideally used in therapy to prepare a client for a situation that will cause significant distress. You don't confront a fear of riding by strapping a person to a horse and forcing them to race in the Kentucky derby, likewise you don't help a traumatized combat vet by taking them to a fireworks show two weeks after the event that traumatized them. Trigger warnings are an intermediate step setting up a safe environment for a person to begin confronting their trauma.

I'm sorry but this is false. Maybe it's just different in uk and I've been HORRIBLE at my work, but my own experiences working at a mental health clinic and helping therapists prepare for their patients and choosing the appropriate therapy have been contradictory to your statement.

First of all for that horse example, you WOULD get the rider to go back on the horse, albeit in steps (first seeing the horse, then touching the horse, then putting your foot in the spur, etc), this is called systematic desensitization therapy, and is the primary one used for a lot of phobias and mental blocs. It would be unsuitable for a soldier with PTSD but your fireworks example would actually be a good exercise for that vet once he had been sufficiently prepared for it.

We have NEVER used trigger warnings or any of that during all my time at the clinic. Unless this came into fashion after I left then I doubt this has changed. And we have had some hardcore cases I'll tell you that so it certainly wasn't because the client wasn't traumatized enough. I am unconvinced the addition of trigger warnings as a therapy tool would really be effective either, because you're basically priming the participant, but for what result? What is the intention in priming the patient when the goal of the therapy would be for the patient to be able to function with their trauma in unscripted and unprimed situations?

It's worth pointing out that psychological therapies are backed by research but I've yet to see a research paper on trigger warnings in therapy (though granted I haven't been as dilligent in reading psych papers as I once was), it's only ever been championed by well meaning (I hope) media sources and social sites as far as I know and seeing as the last time the public decided to champion unproven theories, we got Freudianism, colour me skeptical.

 

[BarkBarker]

Bringing the word triggered to something so petty as upsetting you is a hell of a disrespect to the people who have suffered from traumatic experiences and mentally break in one way or the other when they are reminded of it. However, at a certain point it has to be less of the content creator warning people and more you going out to deal with your problem. If you have PTSD, my condolences. If you need some time to recover and don't want to be around things that set you off, that's cool. If something very common can set you off, I suggest you stay away from a large part of media and get help ASAP, its like trying to cook for people with certain allergies if you'll pardon the comparison: some people can do anything but say nuts, some people are allergic to an ingredient found in 85% of what we eat and it gets to a point of frustration. The upside is trauma can be helped.

 

[MatParker116]

If the prevailing advice is that trigger warnings are of some use to people with PTSD, then I don't see the issue with people wanting them to be used more. I can even appreciate people getting annoyed about it when they aren't used. Even if we assume people demand trigger warnings for wholly arrogant or self-centred reasons, the result is still a good thing - more trigger warnings are used, for the benefit of people with PTSD.

According to a former harvard psychology professor it's actually the opposite:

Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder. According to a rigorous analysis by the Institute of Medicine, exposure therapy is the most efficacious treatment for PTSD, especially in civilians who have suffered trauma such as sexual assault. For example, prolonged exposure therapy, the cognitive behavioral treatment pioneered by clinical psychologists Edna B. Foa and Barbara O. Rothbaum, entails having clients close their eyes and recount their trauma in the first-person present tense. After repeated imaginal relivings, most clients experience significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, as traumatic memories lose their capacity to cause emotional distress. Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life. By practicing confronting these triggers, clients learn that fear subsides, enabling them to reclaim their lives and conquer PTSD.

 

[Thaluikhain]

First of all for that horse example, you WOULD get the rider to go back on the horse, albeit in steps (first seeing the horse, then touching the horse, then putting your foot in the spur, etc), this is called systematic desensitization therapy, and is the primary one used for a lot of phobias and mental blocs.

And if the person didn't want to do that just yet, we'd say "hell with it, it's inconvenient not to put people on horses all the time whether they want to or not"?

And, like you say, in carefully measured steps, which is not going to happen in this case.

 

[Synigma]

You know, if I ever do a video that I feel needs a trigger or content warning or something, I'm definitely putting "Trigger warning: Trigger warnings" at the front of said warning.

Then I'm going to point and laugh at the people complaining about trigger warnings in the comments. They just trigger so easily.

Yo Dawg I heard you liked trigger warnings so we trigger warned you about the trigger warnings for all the triggers in this warning.

 

[Thaluikhain]

According to a former harvard psychology professor it's actually the opposite:

Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder. According to a rigorous analysis by the Institute of Medicine, exposure therapy is the most efficacious treatment for PTSD, especially in civilians who have suffered trauma such as sexual assault. For example, prolonged exposure therapy, the cognitive behavioral treatment pioneered by clinical psychologists Edna B. Foa and Barbara O. Rothbaum, entails having clients close their eyes and recount their trauma in the first-person present tense. After repeated imaginal relivings, most clients experience significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, as traumatic memories lose their capacity to cause emotional distress. Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life. By practicing confronting these triggers, clients learn that fear subsides, enabling them to reclaim their lives and conquer PTSD.

Out of interest, what is the source for that?

Because, yes, trigger warnings are intended to avoid reminders of their trauma (to avoided being triggered, not discomfort, mind), and qualified therapists exposing people to triggering things under a developed hierarchy, getting rid of the first hardly equates to the second. That's like saying I get to throw spiders at random people without warning because people with Phds might expose arachnophobes to spiders are part of their therapy.

...

Actually, being allowed to throw spiders at people would sorta be cool, nevermind.

 

[MatParker116]

According to a former harvard psychology professor it's actually the opposite:

Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder. According to a rigorous analysis by the Institute of Medicine, exposure therapy is the most efficacious treatment for PTSD, especially in civilians who have suffered trauma such as sexual assault. For example, prolonged exposure therapy, the cognitive behavioral treatment pioneered by clinical psychologists Edna B. Foa and Barbara O. Rothbaum, entails having clients close their eyes and recount their trauma in the first-person present tense. After repeated imaginal relivings, most clients experience significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, as traumatic memories lose their capacity to cause emotional distress. Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life. By practicing confronting these triggers, clients learn that fear subsides, enabling them to reclaim their lives and conquer PTSD.

Out of interest, what is the source for that?

Because, yes, trigger warnings are intended to avoid reminders of their trauma (to avoided being triggered, not discomfort, mind), and qualified therapists exposing people to triggering things under a developed hierarchy, getting rid of the first hardly equates to the second. That's like saying I get to throw spiders at random people without warning because people with Phds might expose arachnophobes to spiders are part of their therapy.

...

Actually, being allowed to throw spiders at people would sorta be cool, nevermind.

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/hazards-ahead-problem-trigger-warnings-according-research-81946

 

[Frankster]

And if the person didn't want to do that just yet, we'd say "hell with it, it's inconvenient not to put people on horses all the time whether they want to or not"?

Then the therapy pauses and we revert back to the previous step until we get there, or mix it up a bit, cognitive therapy might be of additional help here in overcoming the patient's resistance. Or maybe this approach just fails entirely and a new one is needed. Ultimately the goal is to get the person back on the horse in the end.

And the spider example is actually half true. Desensitization therapy is used to help treat arachnophobia with great effectiveness , with the final step being to actually hold a tarantula or similarly scary big arachnid in your hand. Throwing spiders would be way too hardcore of a step, not to mention don't like how it endangers animals unnecessarily, but throwing spiders at a former arachnophobe would be an effective, if cruel and unethical way of of testing just how far they have progressed.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Throwing spiders would be way too hardcore of a step, not to mention don't like how it endangers animals unnecessarily, but throwing spiders at a former arachnophobe would be an effective, if cruel and unethical way of of testing just how far they have progressed.

It's the cruel and unethical part I have a problem with (that and I don't have any relevant qualifications).

Saying that trigger warnings should allow people to choose whether or not they want to expose themselves to certain things at certain times is by no means saying that qualified therapists can't expose consenting patients to certain things.

 

[Abomination]

Hiding from one's fear only heightens the fear.

They're like Boos in Mario, they're only dangerous when you're not facing them.

Trigger warnings are air-tight band-aids over septic wounds.

 

[Frankster]

Saying that trigger warnings should allow people to choose whether or not they want to expose themselves to certain things at certain times is by no means saying that qualified therapists can't expose consenting patients to certain things.

Had to read Mattparkers post to fully understand context here xP

Well I won't disagree with that statement, I've never stated acceptance of trigger warnings will influence therapy doctrine and I certainly hope it never will, at least not without having some research to back it up first.

I don't think trigger warnings is power of choice though, ultimately every time a prospective patient sees a trigger warning, it will bring back memories of what they seek to avoid by association and prime them to function in a certain manner (i.e: expecting to have trigger warnings as the norm rather then the exception and expecting to have the power to control when they confront what troubles them, if they even confront it at all) that just makes them more vulnerable and unprepared to deal with unscripted situations. Reinforcing avoidance behaviour would make additional obstacles in therapy too.

 

[Something Amyss]

The problem I have with "Trigger Warnings" is that the people screaming for them are usually doing so in the name of outrage, rather than for any diagnosed psychological condition. It's seldom 'asked' for and is, instead, 'demanded' regardless of whatever the content creator might have to say on the subject.

For the folks with actual conditions? Yeah, I feel for them. Triggering trauma isn't exactly a fun thing, as I've seen with some former military friends (just recently, what with the 4th and all) so to see people flinging around the term for something that just makes them feel uncomfortable?

Makes me sick.

So as someone who suffers from PTSD, here's my two cents on that.

The concept of a trigger warning was done with the intent, basically, that people who suffered from traumatic events could confront them on their own terms. While not in itself a psychological term, it's sort of based in the same vein as the controlled exposure that is frequently used to help people cope with and hopefully overcome PTSD. And that actually isn't a bad thing.

But there's that saying that no plan survives the battlefield. I'm going to repurpose that: no good intentions survives the internet.

"Trigger" has now developed into internet slang for "thing which I mildly dislike." While people like to blame Tumblr, it's all over the internet. This boiled over for me when I watched two people on YouTube essentially having a "trigger" slapfight. In their parlance, I was triggered. In real-world terms, I was pissed off.

As someone with PTSD, I appreciate that this wasn't the original intent, but the word's been devalued well below the concept to the point I have an aversion to it. I actually visibly flinch when a health care worker uses the term, and they tend to use it, you know, correctly. I imagine they've done more harm than good, and that's before the internet sociopaths jump in and start mocking people.

Weaponising a legit condition is not cool.

Also, I would note that while trigger warnings we well-intended, what actually "triggers" people isn't an A to B sort of thing.

 

[Gorrath]

As one of those vets people seem to like to reference, I'll throw my 2 cents into the ring.

First, PTSD: I don't even like saying that I have PTSD because of the reactions that admission regularly gets me. Either people assume I"m one of "those guys" with the thousand yard stare who's reliving the war in my head over and over or worse, they think that I need a bunch of sympathy and coddling and to be told, as if I'm a child, that bad things happen but everything's okay now. Sets my damned teeth on edge.

Second, on being triggered: For me, being triggered involves a set of stimuli that is fairly predictable, though not always. If I go and see a realistic war movie, big chance I'll end up with some degree of an anxiety attack. These are mild-ish compared to what some people go through with their PTSD so I'm not claiming my experiences are the end-all, be-all but I seem to be pretty average in this respect. I still go to realistic war movies because I enjoy them, even knowing there's a high chance I'll spend chunks of the movie dealing with pretty powerful anxiety. This "triggering" manifests as an uncontrollable and often overwhelming physical response. My muscles clamp down, my eyes get big or tighten up, my head often turns to one side as if to look away as one would when expecting a loud bang. I will often tremble and feel my blood rush in my veins and pound in my ears. My heartrate will skyrocket. It is not particularly pleasant and sometimes I don't even realize it has happened until I pry my fingers from the armrest or my wife is looking at me instead of the movie. So for me, it isn't anything to do with fear, just uncontrollable anxiety in response to a certain type of image/sound/even dialogue.

Third, on trigger warnings: I find the whole concept, and the people who don't have PTSD but who support the notion, condescending as all hell. I do not need to be coddled. I do not need to be warned that some movie, or blog post, or children's cartoon might have something in it that will trigger my anxiety attacks. I can deal all on my own without everyone tip-toeing around on eggshells, worried that they may cause me some level of discomfort. I have no problem with anyone choosing to include them, even if seeing them makes me roll my eyes.

I do have a problem with people suggesting that not including them is somehow rude or insensitive. No one should be expected to respect your quirks of personality, especially when they have no clue who you are and what might trigger you. You don't like being triggered? Avoid shit that triggers you. You can't avoid being triggered? Deal with it. I have a very strong notion that many people who complain about being triggered have no clue what the fuck they are talking about though and that those who sneeringly lambast those who don't use trigger warnings are doing so just for their own self-satisfaction and self-congratulation. That's not to suggest that no one who supports trigger warnings and is an ass about them don't have PTSD but it seems a strong indicator that they don't in my experience.

Hope my experiences give some insight, even if they are just one person's opinion and experiences.