Advocates for the use of trigger warnings suggest that they can help people avoid or emotionally prepare for encountering content related to a past trauma. But trigger warnings may not fulfill either of these functions, according to an analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science.
Yeah, I get pretty stressed out when people put CWs on stupid things like “CW: Food”.
that type of CW is mostly for people with eating disorders
Or for vegans/vegetarians to not see meats.
Then it should be cw:meat lol
Fair
Sounds like people that needs to avoid looking at food has a tough time being outside.
What’s next? A “CW: Dog” so snowflakes that like cats don’t feel offended?
No, but maybe if you have been mauled by a dog you appreciate that kind of warning.
That’s stupid. Those pixels on a screen can’t hurt anyone. And if you think otherwise, you should seek professional help instead of expecting from everyone else to adjust to your mental issues.
But it’s kinda stupid to cry about warnings too, why shouldn’t people be able to avoid content they don’t want to watch? If you’re such a tough guy that pixels don’t scare you then you’re tough enough that you can probably live through a world that chooses to make concessions in the form of content warnings for those who need or prefer them.
Why do these snowflakes just not filter the content like normal people? Most apps support this. Why does everybody else have to click away the CW just because a minuscule fraction of people might get irritated?
…aren’t the content warnings a form of filter? Are you such a snowflake that you’re absurdly triggered by having to click through something?
“Snowflake is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions”
idk, you keep using this word but it applies more to your comments than to people that are just dealing with trauma…
Also, I don’t use filters but I’ve heard from people that do that they are bad cause they might filter some things you’re okay with. Context matters.
Then how did these traumatised people ever watch the news on TV or read a newspaper where there are no CWs? How did they take part in discussions on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc.? And how are they supposed to work through their trauma when they never get confronted with it?
If they are okay with “some things”, they’d have to open each article behind a very generic CW-description anyways. What’s the purpose of the CW then?
If only past trauma was so easy to deal with. Perhaps a little consideration for others in a social space isn’t too much to ask.
Honestly I’m sick of this shit. It really feels like we’ve stopped having consideration for trauma and are now just enabling it.
Trauma sucks, but you have to get over it. That’s the goal. Not to live in a little bubble wrap reality. Society will not conform to your particular fucked-upness.
Like most healing processes, recovering from trauma takes time. It’s not reasonable to expect that everyone will be recovered from their trauma at any given time. And a society that won’t give people time to heal before dealing with more of the shit they’ve been through is more than a little flawed. Hell, some people deal with their trauma by rejecting empathy rather than acknowledge that they’ve been hurt. I know I did that for decades.
It’s not reasonable (or, I would argue, even HELPFUL) to have society censor itself to cater to the tiny number of traumatized people.
Are we supposed to adjust to your mental issue of being irrationally angry at content warnings?
Apparently so
if CWs bother you, you can turn them off in most fedi clients
CW: Content Warnings
Local news site from my city censored the word “att*cked” and it’s the most stupid shit ever
Just because it doesn’t pertain to you doesn’t mean it’s stupid.