Holy fuck - my girl goes from her kids & her kitchen table to graphic descriptions of sexual assault in like 0.2 seconds.
Give a fucking warning or some shit at least, you awful excuse for a “lawmaker”. Think of the “children” who you consistently use as an excuse to take actions against the LGBTQ community that cause them and their families to live in constant fear. Because those families don’t matter like yours, obviously.
Also, all the economic shit you removed about - why people are poor and have no retirement - that’s on you and your friends’ watches. And to your “fellow moms” who struggle - lower the cost to childcare. Help single mothers. Make real maternity and paternity leave a thing. Lower the cost of healthcare.
Or just keep screaming into that camera like the fake POS you are. That’ll help.
Not just the former guy. Trump, Bush, Reagan all gutted tax revenue by repeatedly handing tax breaks to the wealthy who neither needed nor deserved them.
There’s plenty of money in the Pentagon budget. We don’t need to increase taxes on anyone to pay for social programs. We need to stop spending it on crimes against humanity.
EU was able to do that because they know the US will jump in if there’s trouble. We’re funding European defense while they fund social programs and act smug about it on the internet.
The US has thousands of nukes, oceans to the east and west, and allies to the north and south. We do not need this much military spending to defend ourselves.
The military is not for protecting themselves but for protecting trade and markets. That was also the deal with Europe: USA protect you and you buy our stuff with our currency. It’s what you see with the Houthis in Yemen. Nobody cares they kill some people, but they’re disturbing trade routes so action must be taken.
There’s always more money but the more you make the less worth it becomes what gives other major issues. There are enough countries that tried this and failed.
But yeah, the defence industry is a self serving industry and slashing budget hurts hardware providers which are also wealthy campaign donation contributors so nothing happens.
Conclusion
Existing research on content warnings, content notes, and trigger warnings suggests that they are fruitless, although they do reliably induce a period of uncomfortable anticipation. Although many questions warrant further investigation, trigger warnings should not be used as a mental-health tool.
I sometimes like them, but literally only as a content label and not some glorified mental health save. Sometimes it’s nice to choose not to ruin a good mood by reading a downer of a story.
You literally just described how it’s a mental health save though. If a content/trigger warning gives you the opportunity it’s to skip the content and not be put into a bad mood, that’s a mental health save. For you, it’s maybe small. For someone with cptsd, it could be pretty fuckin big.
The entire point is most of the time it doesn’t come with such an opportunity. Is someone supposed to go through all the effort of skipping classes and assignments just because a label showed up on a topic? No.
It’s not a mental save. It’s merely forewarning. The entire point is it isn’tproviding a mental save. In my case, I only gain the benefit because I can skip the content with no other repercussions.
I didn’t have that experience in school (albeit that was 10 years ago) and the only places I’ve seen TWs is the internet.
So maybe it’s a situation of time and place when it is and isn’t effective. But in a case where there’s no opportunity to abstain, then I agree with you that it’s merely a forewarning and largely useless aside from keeping the topic from causing a bit of whiplash.
Take your train of thought one step further. Because there is no actual tangible benefit to be gained, it means there is no practical difference between a trigger warning and a basic content label. Treating them as anything more is simply glorifying a label.
To be clear, I conditionally agree with you based on the context and setting where it’s used. But, that’s what they are. Content labels. And a content label (ostensibly) should allow you to decide in advance if you want to consume the content. If you don’t have a choice in the matter, what’s the point?
We’ve been rating movies for forever for this exact reason. To give people information to decide if they want to consume the content considering the violence, sexual content, language, drug use, etc.
In the case of trigger warnings, they’re intended to say ‘this content is potentially triggering for some people due to this particular topic’ (SA, eating disorders, drug use, etc., all have vulnerable people who can be genuinely triggered by reading content about it, especially if it’s in detail). And having the opportunity to not consume that content rather than be slapped in the face with it is a mental health save. It has value in that context, which you even described in your own comment. You sometimes like them, and that’s when I’m saying they have value as trigger warnings specifically.
I didn’t think I was being unclear and I’m sorry if I was, but we seem to agree here. You just appear to be saying ‘all trigger warnings are dumb and don’t help with mental health’ while going on to describe how they (sometimes) help with mental health.
In reality that’s a practice that should already be done though. Use of tags for content should be able to tell you what you’re getting into. Normally people have a pretty good idea about what they’re getting into already when consuming content.
Saying ‘Rape trigger warning’ literally only just makes somebody who has a trigger regarding rape immediately anticipate a trigger even if they decided against consuming the content. I’ve pulled the most succinct evidence below.
Response affect
Most of the empirical inquiry into the efficacy of trigger warnings has focused on emotional responses toward material accompanied by warnings (e.g., ratings of anxiety while reading passages; Bellet et al., 2018). These studies have reached mixed conclusions. Most studies (Bellet et al., 2020; Boysen et al., 2021; Bridgland et al., 2019; Gavac, 2020; Sanson et al., 2019) have concluded that trigger warnings have a trivial impact on emotional responses. Two studies found that warnings increase negative emotional reactions toward material (Bellet et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2020). Only one study concluded that warnings may reduce emotional reactions toward material (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018).
Avoidance
Several previous studies have examined behavioral avoidance of material accompanied by a warning (e.g., choosing a video title presented with or without a trigger warning; Gainsburg & Earl, 2018). Several studies have found that warnings have a negligible effect on avoidance toward material (Jones et al., 2020; Sanson et al., 2019). Other studies have concluded that warnings may lead to small increases in avoidance behaviors (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018) or small increases in engagement with material (Bruce & Roberts, 2020).
Anticipatory affect
A small handful of previous studies have experimentally tested emotional reactions (e.g., state anxiety; Bridgland et al., 2019) in the anticipatory period after giving a warning but prior to exposure to the warned-about content. This literature consistently demonstrates that viewing a trigger warning appears to increase anticipatory anxiety prior to viewing content (Boysen et al., 2021; Bridgland et al., 2019; Bridgland & Takarangi, 2021; Bruce et al., 2023; Gainsburg & Earl, 2018).
Comprehension
Finally, other studies have investigated the way that warnings might enhance or reduce the comprehension of stimuli (e.g., scores on a multiple-choice test for factual content; e.g., Boysen et al., 2021). These studies have found that trigger warnings do not seem to impair or enhance the comprehension of educational material (Boysen et al., 2021; Gavac, 2020; Sanson et al., 2019).
Yea, any emphasis beyond a basic label is just inviting scrutiny. Glorifying “trigger warnings” above just negative labels definitely puts way too much emphasis on them.
I’m curious to understand more of the setting where they collected this data.
If they collected it from volunteers who signed up for studies, then I’d question whether or not the data collected is reliable. In a clinical setting people are more likely to push through discomfort than they are at home on their phone. I don’t have the stamina to look through every referenced study to try and suss it out though.
I’ve seen a lot of modern studies with questionable data collection. It was a significant portion of a few of my psych and sociology classes in college.
The nature of this study would suggest to me that they take it into account as it doesn’t feel like it’s pushing an agenda, but it’s still good to be skeptical. Especially with regards to such vague and difficult to assess responses.
They absolutely should be used if it’s not apparent from the cover. A person with rape induced PTSD will benefit from knowing they need to either not consume this media or be ready with their coping skills.
What’s not helpful is putting them everywhere there is even a tangential chance of something. This speech could do with one. Some streamer using the word rape pejoratively does not. And of course it isn’t going to make the anxiety any better. That’s not the purpose of a trigger warning.
The difference between having your coping tools at the front of your mind and ready to go versus being surprised by graphic depictions of your trauma can literally be weeks of depression and panic attacks versus a few minutes of mindfulness exercises.
Edit to add - for a bunch of psychology professors they miss the point pretty impressively.
Holy fuck - my girl goes from her kids & her kitchen table to graphic descriptions of sexual assault in like 0.2 seconds.
Give a fucking warning or some shit at least, you awful excuse for a “lawmaker”. Think of the “children” who you consistently use as an excuse to take actions against the LGBTQ community that cause them and their families to live in constant fear. Because those families don’t matter like yours, obviously.
Also, all the economic shit you removed about - why people are poor and have no retirement - that’s on you and your friends’ watches. And to your “fellow moms” who struggle - lower the cost to childcare. Help single mothers. Make real maternity and paternity leave a thing. Lower the cost of healthcare.
Or just keep screaming into that camera like the fake POS you are. That’ll help.
After the tax cuts for the rich there’s no money left for this. And who did those cuts? The previous president.
Not just the former guy. Trump, Bush, Reagan all gutted tax revenue by repeatedly handing tax breaks to the wealthy who neither needed nor deserved them.
There’s plenty of money in the Pentagon budget. We don’t need to increase taxes on anyone to pay for social programs. We need to stop spending it on crimes against humanity.
Por que no los dos?
EU did that and saved on military spending. Now they have a Russia infestation. Just fully cutting the military budget is impossible.
Also the use of military force is tied to the economic system. You can’t change one without the other.
EU was able to do that because they know the US will jump in if there’s trouble. We’re funding European defense while they fund social programs and act smug about it on the internet.
The US has thousands of nukes, oceans to the east and west, and allies to the north and south. We do not need this much military spending to defend ourselves.
The military is not for protecting themselves but for protecting trade and markets. That was also the deal with Europe: USA protect you and you buy our stuff with our currency. It’s what you see with the Houthis in Yemen. Nobody cares they kill some people, but they’re disturbing trade routes so action must be taken.
This is not what the commenter said, you can remove some of a budget without fully cutting.
the idea ‘theres no money left’ is fiction. a fantasy. theres always money left because we (the country) live in debt.
they never Not increase the military budget because ‘were out of funds’. they also never decrease it despite the fact we dont really need 50% of it.
There’s always more money but the more you make the less worth it becomes what gives other major issues. There are enough countries that tried this and failed.
But yeah, the defence industry is a self serving industry and slashing budget hurts hardware providers which are also wealthy campaign donation contributors so nothing happens.
Trigger warnings don’t work or help.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625
I sometimes like them, but literally only as a content label and not some glorified mental health save. Sometimes it’s nice to choose not to ruin a good mood by reading a downer of a story.
You literally just described how it’s a mental health save though. If a content/trigger warning gives you the opportunity it’s to skip the content and not be put into a bad mood, that’s a mental health save. For you, it’s maybe small. For someone with cptsd, it could be pretty fuckin big.
The entire point is most of the time it doesn’t come with such an opportunity. Is someone supposed to go through all the effort of skipping classes and assignments just because a label showed up on a topic? No.
It’s not a mental save. It’s merely forewarning. The entire point is it isn’t providing a mental save. In my case, I only gain the benefit because I can skip the content with no other repercussions.
Gotcha.
I didn’t have that experience in school (albeit that was 10 years ago) and the only places I’ve seen TWs is the internet.
So maybe it’s a situation of time and place when it is and isn’t effective. But in a case where there’s no opportunity to abstain, then I agree with you that it’s merely a forewarning and largely useless aside from keeping the topic from causing a bit of whiplash.
Take your train of thought one step further. Because there is no actual tangible benefit to be gained, it means there is no practical difference between a trigger warning and a basic content label. Treating them as anything more is simply glorifying a label.
To be clear, I conditionally agree with you based on the context and setting where it’s used. But, that’s what they are. Content labels. And a content label (ostensibly) should allow you to decide in advance if you want to consume the content. If you don’t have a choice in the matter, what’s the point?
We’ve been rating movies for forever for this exact reason. To give people information to decide if they want to consume the content considering the violence, sexual content, language, drug use, etc.
In the case of trigger warnings, they’re intended to say ‘this content is potentially triggering for some people due to this particular topic’ (SA, eating disorders, drug use, etc., all have vulnerable people who can be genuinely triggered by reading content about it, especially if it’s in detail). And having the opportunity to not consume that content rather than be slapped in the face with it is a mental health save. It has value in that context, which you even described in your own comment. You sometimes like them, and that’s when I’m saying they have value as trigger warnings specifically.
I didn’t think I was being unclear and I’m sorry if I was, but we seem to agree here. You just appear to be saying ‘all trigger warnings are dumb and don’t help with mental health’ while going on to describe how they (sometimes) help with mental health.
In reality that’s a practice that should already be done though. Use of tags for content should be able to tell you what you’re getting into. Normally people have a pretty good idea about what they’re getting into already when consuming content.
Saying ‘Rape trigger warning’ literally only just makes somebody who has a trigger regarding rape immediately anticipate a trigger even if they decided against consuming the content. I’ve pulled the most succinct evidence below.
Yea, any emphasis beyond a basic label is just inviting scrutiny. Glorifying “trigger warnings” above just negative labels definitely puts way too much emphasis on them.
I’m curious to understand more of the setting where they collected this data.
If they collected it from volunteers who signed up for studies, then I’d question whether or not the data collected is reliable. In a clinical setting people are more likely to push through discomfort than they are at home on their phone. I don’t have the stamina to look through every referenced study to try and suss it out though.
Yeah… Because that’s already accounted for… Like nearly every study that’s been peer reviewed and definitely meta analysis studies…
Data science has come a long way since 80 years ago lol.
I’ve seen a lot of modern studies with questionable data collection. It was a significant portion of a few of my psych and sociology classes in college.
The nature of this study would suggest to me that they take it into account as it doesn’t feel like it’s pushing an agenda, but it’s still good to be skeptical. Especially with regards to such vague and difficult to assess responses.
They absolutely should be used if it’s not apparent from the cover. A person with rape induced PTSD will benefit from knowing they need to either not consume this media or be ready with their coping skills.
What’s not helpful is putting them everywhere there is even a tangential chance of something. This speech could do with one. Some streamer using the word rape pejoratively does not. And of course it isn’t going to make the anxiety any better. That’s not the purpose of a trigger warning.
The difference between having your coping tools at the front of your mind and ready to go versus being surprised by graphic depictions of your trauma can literally be weeks of depression and panic attacks versus a few minutes of mindfulness exercises.
Edit to add - for a bunch of psychology professors they miss the point pretty impressively.