Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
for people who have been previously bored by Tory pricks.
It should have come with a trigger warning.
I didn't read the article.
He may not be relevant anymore but when he plays the hits it feels like old times.
Do "what's your point, spaceman?" next!
Warny looks so young...
I don't see what the fuss is about, CG.
Well, there you go.
He just fancies some attention.
on the extent to which things are likely to be triggering.
I mean, everything is potentially triggering to somebody, but I doubt we'll ever find ourselves with content trigger hints/ wanrings on every single piece of media content.
Other things (such as rape e.g.) it's fairly obvious to see why these might be triggering to the may people who have been victims of this or other types of assault of that nature.
it's about using common sense and compassion together.
People are never going to get it perfect, obviously, but we can try.
but some Columbia University students recently requested that trigger warnings be used on Ovid...
only babies think it isn't
as mentioned in most instances they or their equivalent ("Viewer discretion is advised") have been in use for years.
but when people call articles/art out for not having them, that's a bit rich for my blood.
The post below this contains an ableist slur.
so we could rephrase as: "cn: ableism, childish drivel"
but the idea of calling it a "trigger warning" makes it sound really fucking lame. "Warning: contains graphic descriptions of sexual assault" should cover everyone, from people who are "triggered" by it and those who just don't want to read about it.
is well-meaning but ultimately slightly too naive, given that anxiety can conceivably be triggered by the smallest, most otherwise insignificant, things that may just happen to relate to, for example, a traumatic memory.
I dunno, though., maaaaan
I'm not sure any strong conclusions follow this? sure, people can be triggered by odd stuff, but if a decent number of people are triggered by obvious stuff then there's still a lot of utility in sticking a note on for the obvious stuff, right?
If you read a word you don't like, you can just stop reading it. Look away or something. It's not like Game Of Thrones where it's all 'oh this person's getting brutalized now' and you're scrabbling for the remote control.
How often does this actually happen anyway - reading a missive on the migration patterns of the Monarch butterfly which suddenly launches into a detailed account of some atrocity? Are things not usually evident from the headline, pictures (which you'll see before a trigger warning anyway), opening paragraphs, general tone of a site?
Can't help thinking it's mostly about forcing people you don't like to do things they don't want to do, which the Twitter/Tumblr/Redditsphere occupies 90% of their time with nowadays. Most sites worth their salt do it already. If you ask a GamerGater to put a warning before a sexist diatribe they're not going to do it just to spite you. If you want to force them to do it by law, you need to work out the definition of a trigger which will be too hazy to enforce. I'd like to see some actual examples of where this might be a problem.
on the IM MAD ABOUT TRIGGER WARNINGS bingo card, great work
well, you do have to write about four words before your speech. In a similar way, not being able to find my wallet this morning temporarily hindered my freedom of movement.