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.
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?
“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?
That’s their problem. The thing here is you’re complaining about CW because you have to CLICK it, and can’t understand it’s useful for some people. Instead, you keep complaining and saying it’s useless.
Can’t you be a bit empathic? Like “I don’t understand CW but some people want them, I can deal with having to click through the warning”. Or are you entitled to open things in one click over other people feeling comfortable?
So, you’re saying these traumatised people need to find ways to manage public TV and newspapers, but on Mastodon everybody else is supposed to accommodate for them and add CWs?
Again, the people that might(!) profit from the CWs are a minuscule amount compared to the people inconvenienced by them. And, as the linked study explains, they even seem to make things worse. So my point is: Just get rid of them. According to that study, that might even be beneficial to these traumatised people.
“these traumatised people” lol. It’s not even about that. The most common CW that you probably use and enjoy is the NSFW warning. You understand that you might be at work and not wanting to see nudity or gore or other sensitive stuff, right? If you’re eating while you’re browsing posts, maybe you want a “CW: poop” before you open a post and barf a bit because you’re eating, not because you can’t handle poop.
And yeah, “everyone else” is supposed to accommodate the minorities. Your rhetoric reeks of alt-right, I guess you’re “inconvenienced” by reserved parking spots, and for inclusive language, and want to “get rid of them” too?
…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?
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.
Are we supposed to adjust to your mental issue of being irrationally angry at content warnings?