What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Trigger Warnings - What's your take? (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
We've had an interesting discussion here about Trigger Warnings.

This isn't a political thing. It just happened that Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg said something that generated discussion. 

@adonis started the discussion here.

Buttigieg sent an email that said this:

Please note: this email contains language that may trigger feelings of trauma related to gun violence.

-- 

Twenty years ago, two Columbine High School students murdered twelve peers and one teacher. 

Two decades later, the rate of school shootings has increased. In 2018, there were more incidents of gun violence and more gun deaths at schools than any other year on record. In no other developed nation do students face these unprecedented levels of gun violence in their schools.

(The email goes on a bit to talk about his position on gun control and such)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, don't turn this into political talk. This isn't about Buttigieg and it's not about gun control.

Please be cool. The question I'd ask here is what folks think about trigger warnings in general. 

 
And I'm sorry about the jacked up formatting on the post above. Not sure what's happening there. :bag:  

 
I think some of the discussion revolves around a point @Henry Ford made.

It seems like people don't mind trigger warnings before a concert letting the audience know there will be flashing lights in case anyone with epilepsy is in the crowd and would have trouble. 

But a trigger warning about gun violence or eating meat has a different reaction. 

 
Joe - is the question "are trigger warnings themselves a negative thing for you?"
Thanks Binky.

I think the question is more how one feels in general about them.

There was some discussion in the Buttigieg thread that it was a negative opening his email with a trigger warning that he was going to talk about Columbine and Gun Violence.

Others didn't think it was a negative at all. 

 
Are TV/movie ratings considered a trigger warning?  
No, those are largely warnings to be used by parents to determine whether movies are OK for their kids to watch.

Trigger warnings are warnings largely for adults to be forewarned that content they're about to read could be emotionally upsetting.  It can range from warnings about events that are traumatic to them, or warnings about topics that are controversial, or otherwise upsetting.

 
I remember some old horror movies that flashed something to warn squeamish viewers blood and guts were about to occur.
They also have some warnings on TV that content may be unacceptable for minors due to graphic content or something else.

Largely warnings have been for adults to be made aware that content may not be suitable for kids. 

It's something new that warnings are getting put on things to keep adults from experiencing something that could disturb them.

 
No, those are largely warnings to be used by parents to determine whether movies are OK for their kids to watch.

Trigger warnings are warnings largely for adults to be forewarned that content they're about to read could be emotionally upsetting.  It can range from warnings about events that are traumatic to them, or warnings about topics that are controversial, or otherwise upsetting.
I guess part of my perception is that trigger warnings have been a bigger thing with college age kids, at least in the articles I have read.  I probably don't know a lot about this and should just shut up and listen.  Still not sure why they would upset anyone....

 
Thinking out loud here.

There seems to be some sort of assumption as to what the audience can handle. 

Is that fair to say?

If someone posts a video of someone with a truly gruesome injury where a guy has a compound fracture of his leg and says, "Trigger Warning - Graphic video to follow", I appreciate it. I don't like to see that stuff and I think the author was considerate. 

If someone posts a video of someone that has a relatively minor thing like a legal hard football tackle and says, "Trigger Warning - Graphic video to follow", I think the author must think I can't handle something I consider to be not a big deal. 

Do you think that's some of it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For context, you might want to read the relevant posts in the Political Forum, starting here

My take: I have no problem with trigger warnings, as long as they are not presented in a patronizing or paternalistic manner. Just give me the warning and let me decide if it's something that might qualify as a trigger.

 
trigger warnings, safe spaces, toxic masculinity, snowflakes, etc etc etc-------any reference to or discussion of those phrases can just go away and never come back

 
I guess part of my perception is that trigger warnings have been a bigger thing with college age kids, at least in the articles I have read.  I probably don't know a lot about this and should just shut up and listen.  Still not sure why they would upset anyone....
Speaking for myself, it doesn't upset me and I'd agree that it does largely come from college campuses where other things like deplatforming, safe spaces, micro-aggressions and things like intersectionality abound.

I'm not a fan of any of those things.

We seem to be encouraging a climate of folks retreating from hearing challenging things.  Setting up padded ecosystems for adults who instead of being willing to be challenged, or possibly experiencing things that cause emotional reactions, they want the world around them to cater to their own specific viewpoints and prevent them from experiencing unpleasant things.

It's a whole lot more reasonable when you hear about things like PTSD, or rape, or gun violence warnings from folks who suffer from those things particularly.  But there are trigger warnings for political dialogues folks disagree with, or hearing from alt-right folks, or nationalist folks, or basically any viewpoint that could cause people to have an emotional reaction.

Trigger warnings, again to me, are a step in the wrong direction for society.  We shouldn't be moving to put content warnings on written text for adults just to avoid unpleasant reactions.  Instead, the responsibility should be on the adults to be able to navigate in a world that doesn't cater to them and their given trauma or desires.

It's a step toward seeing the world as full of victims that need to be protected from harm, any type of harm.  It makes us as a whole less able to handle reality.

So essentially I think it's a bad direction to go because of the world it creates when extended to all types of various emotional harm people seem to be wanting protection/warning from.  Also, it's not sustainable or practical.  In that article from Pete, you could be warned against gun violence if you suffered that.  What about folks who were abused by teachers...there were references to teachers in there.  At what level is it reasonable to warn folks about the content of messages?  Do we need to do an index of all the words in a story, cross-reference those words with a list of traumatic experiences they might remind folks about, and put an indexed summary of words contained in a story in advance of the stories to make sure folks know what content they're reading about before they read a story?  That's really not that far off from practical based on the intent of trigger warnings.

But yeah, essentially I don't think it's the responsibility of the world to protect individuals from experiencing well-meaning content that could possibly upset them or elicit emotional responses.  I think it's the obligation of adults to do work necessary to at baseline be able to navigate the world around them and responsibly handle reading well-meaning articles like the one from Pete without needing warnings to prepare themselves for a benign discussion of a topic of national importance.

 
For context, you might want to read the relevant posts in the Political Forum, starting here

My take: I have no problem with trigger warnings, as long as they are not presented in a patronizing or paternalistic manner. Just give me the warning and let me decide if it's something that might qualify as a trigger.
Ok, say I was molested by a teacher in school and reading anything about teachers triggers me.  Should that article from Pete also have had a trigger warning for victims of abuse from teachers because it mentions teachers?

 
It inconveniences nobody and helps some people...so what's the problem? Not even sure what the argument against would be. It costs us nothing to show consideration to certain traumatized people. There's a warning and then the content begins. 

Any argument against this is purely an argument for change making people uncomfortable. Empathy is something we need more of. 

There is obviously a line. You don't need a dinosaur trigger warning before Barney begins even if there are a few people out there with a phobia or something. This is obviously about specific traumatic topics like rape, violence, etc. It's perfectly fine (and helpful) if a darker episode of Grey's Anatomy or House or something begins with a trigger warning about there being a depiction or emotional discussion of sexual assault in the episode. Who does that hurt? 

Lumping in something like this with other phrases like "snowflakes" and "toxic masculinity" just shows that some people have one-track minds that can't turn their politics off. Which makes it hard to have this discussion outside the PSF and separate from politics. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember some old horror movies that flashed something to warn squeamish viewers blood and guts were about to occur.
They also have some warnings on TV that content may be unacceptable for minors due to graphic content or something else.

Largely warnings have been for adults to be made aware that content may not be suitable for kids. 

It's something new that warnings are getting put on things to keep adults from experiencing something that could disturb them.
I don't think this is all that new. I have seen these types of warnings -- intended for adults -- on many adult TV programs.

I think what has changed is that the warnings have been more prominent and more specific. Instead of a generic "Viewer discretion advised", we're seeing things like "This program contains graphic depictions of ____ which could potentially trigger traumatic feelings in some people. Viewer discretion advised."

 
I don't think this is all that new. I have seen these types of warnings -- intended for adults -- on many adult TV programs.

I think what has changed is that the warnings have been more prominent and more specific. Instead of a generic "Viewer discretion advised", we're seeing things like "This program contains graphic depictions of ____ which could potentially trigger traumatic feelings in some people. Viewer discretion advised."
Generally, those warnings are intended to provide parents with information necessary to determine if their kids can watch a program.  It's not intended for adults.

 
Completely dependent on context and situation.  I get movie/TV ratings or maybe a a warning before an extremely graphic video during the news, stuff like that.  

What starts to make me nervous is reports coming out of higher education about needing them before lectures or to warn students that certain words or topics might be in an assigned book.  

I could see it getting taken to an unhealthy degree and making it too easy for people to hide from difficult topics or conversations and not developing a way to deal with them in a healthy way.  

 
It inconveniences nobody and helps some people...so what's the problem? Not even sure what the argument against would be. It costs us nothing to show consideration to certain traumatized people. There's a warning and then the content begins. 

Any argument against this is purely an argument for change making people uncomfortable. Empathy is something we need more of. 
Here's some additional information:

An Introduction to Content Warnings and Trigger Warnings in the Classroom

What are they?

Content warnings are verbal or written notices that precede potentially sensitive content. These notices flag the contents of the material that follows, so readers, listeners, or viewers can prepare themselves to adequately engage or, if necessary, disengage for their own wellbeing. Trigger warnings are a specific variety of content warning that attempt to forewarn audiences of content that may cause intense physiological and psychological symptoms for people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety disorders. PTSD and other anxiety disorders are real mental health disabilities that have physical, emotional, and mental symptoms that are triggered by stimuli that recalls an individual’s experience of trauma. Individuals do not have control over what triggers them, but many have personal strategies they use to cope with triggers when they must be encountered. Those strategies generally work best when the trigger is expected and can be prepared for in advance of the encounter. Hence the importance of content or trigger warnings: they give people the forewarning necessary for them to make use of the strategies that will decrease the harmfulness of encountering triggering material.   

In the context of the classroom, content warnings might be provided on the syllabus, spoken verbally in lecture, sent out as emails, or posted on a class website. They might include forewarnings of challenging moments in texts they will read for class, material that will be covered in lecture, videos viewed in class, and topics that the instructor expects will come up in class discussion (read the section below on implementing content warnings for more on this).   

Content warnings and trigger warnings are not intended to censure instructors nor invite students to avoid material that challenges them. On the contrary, warning students of challenging material can help their engagement by giving them the ability to take charge of their own health and learning. When presented with a scene that depicts sexual violence, a student who was assaulted might shut down, disassociate, panic, become angry, or otherwise disengage from the class as they put all their attention into managing the emotional and physical symptoms the triggering material brings up for them. However, if the student is forewarned that the material includes a depiction of sexual violence, they might prepare for it by meditating, seeing their therapist, or simply give themselves more time to work through the material so they can process it under controlled conditions. Or they might still need to disengage and skip the pages that include the depiction or step out of class for a few minutes when the material is being discussed, because their mental health and safety are more important than their engagement with the material.

While it is impossible to account for all potential triggers, which could include smells or sounds that recall a past trauma, some of the most common triggers include representations of sexual violence, oppressive language, gunshots, and representations of self-harm (check the end of this document for a list of common content/trigger warnings). If you establish sufficient trust with your students, and make clear to them that you will do your best to supply any requested trigger warnings, you can provide personalized notices about any material that may be triggering for them. However, trust can be challenging to build and takes time, so the inclusion of warnings for common triggers can be helpful to students who may not feel comfortable telling an instructor they barely know very personal information about their mental health and past trauma. The inclusion of common triggers on your syllabus can also help establish trust so students who need warnings for less common triggers—such as specific phobias—will recognize that you will take their concerns seriously and without judgment.  

The motive behind including content warnings in classes is based on the simple recognition that our students are people with lives, histories, and struggles that we are not privy to, and can’t always understand. And those lives, histories, and struggles don’t stop existing when class starts. Students carry those things with them into class and can’t be expected to turn off their emotions and forget their experiences on a whim, no matter how inconvenient they are to an instructor’s designated learning goals. Including content or trigger warnings is an issue of accessibility, as having panic attacks in class (a common outcome when a trigger is unexpectedly encountered) can prevent a student from learning and adversely impacts their health and wellbeing. The use of content or trigger warnings is not “babying” or “coddling” students as some critics suggest; it’s the recognition that the inclusion of people with mental health disabilities matters, and shifting the norms of content presentation to include content warnings to better include them is well worth the small effort it costs the instructor to note potentially distressing material.
Common list of trigger warnings:

Common content warnings

These content warnings are the most common. Consider what material covered in your course may include these and how you would like to flag them for your students. Students may request additional tags, as this list is not exhaustive.

  • Sexual Assault
  • Abuse
  • Child abuse/pedophilia/incest
  • Animal cruelty or animal death
  • Self-harm and suicide
  • Eating disorders, body hatred, and fat phobia
  • Violence
  • Pornographic content
  • Kidnapping and abduction
  • Death or dying
  • Pregnancy/Childbirth
  • Miscarriages/Abortion
  • Blood
  • Mental illness and ableism
  • Racism and racial slurs
  • Sexism and misogyny
  • Classism
  • Hateful language directed at religious groups (e.g., Islamophobia, antisemitism)
  • Transphobia and trans misogyny
  • Homophobia and heterosexism
Imagine a world where every article you read is prefaced by warnings when any of those topics come up.  Imagine kids in schools requiring warnings before reading books with this content, or listening to lectures, on these issues.

Imagine a world of kids growing up feeling like they need to be prepared, in advance, to discuss topics that come up all the time.  Is this a better world where more healthy adults are being prepared in school, or a world where we're cranking out folks wholly unprepared to enter "the real world", or kids who are seeking to go out and rewrite "the real world" to put warning messages before potentially "emotionally reactive" messages are encountered.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone posts a video of someone with a truly gruesome injury where a guy has a compound fracture of his leg and says, "Trigger Warning - Graphic video to follow", I appreciate it. I don't like to see that stuff and I think the author was considerate. 

If someone posts a video of someone that has a relatively minor thing like a legal hard football tackle and says, "Trigger Warning - Graphic video to follow", I think the author must think I can't handle something I consider to be not a big deal. 
This is basically where I am.  I appreciate being warned in advance if something I am about to see is really gruesome.  That doesn't automatically mean I won't watch it, but I'll think twice.  I do however find myself scratching my head at the idea that people might find particular ideas or topics of intellectual discussion similarly disturbing.  I'm just not wired that way, and I'm judgy about people who are.  I'm open to the argument that I'm hypocritical here, but I don't think I am.  At least to me, there's a clear difference between potentially-disturbing imagery (Joe Thiesman) and an argument (gun control is good).  

That said, if somebody wants to lead with a trigger warning, whatever.  I think they're very mildly problematic but in a really trivial way.

 
For context, you might want to read the relevant posts in the Political Forum, starting here

My take: I have no problem with trigger warnings, as long as they are not presented in a patronizing or paternalistic manner. Just give me the warning and let me decide if it's something that might qualify as a trigger.
Ok, say I was molested by a teacher in school and reading anything about teachers triggers me.  Should that article from Pete also have had a trigger warning for victims of abuse from teachers because it mentions teachers?
Well, first off you are asking the wrong guy because I'm not a "we should have trigger warnings" kind of guy.

But if you want my opinion on your scenario: I think that trigger warnings (and the need for them) should be proportional to the likelihood of that subject being traumatic.

For example, scenes of animal abuse are more likely to cause trauma than scenes of teacher. So, I think it would be appropriate to have a warning before a scene that depicts animal abuse, but it would not be necessary to have a warning about a scene that generically depicts a teacher.

On the other hand, if a TV show were to include a scene of a teacher molesting a student, then I would absolutely agree with warning the viewers.

 
I think perpetuating the belief that words themselves are scary and dangerous and that we need to protect adults from even general discussion that could be emotionally upsetting is a terrible idea. 

Rather than helping, trigger warnings just encourage people to think of themselves as weak victims who shouldn't be critically thinking and who should be afraid of words and ideas rather than rational individuals who can debate ideas and use their own words in response.

 
I don't think this is all that new. I have seen these types of warnings -- intended for adults -- on many adult TV programs.

I think what has changed is that the warnings have been more prominent and more specific. Instead of a generic "Viewer discretion advised", we're seeing things like "This program contains graphic depictions of ____ which could potentially trigger traumatic feelings in some people. Viewer discretion advised."
Generally, those warnings are intended to provide parents with information necessary to determine if their kids can watch a program.  It's not intended for adults.
I disagree. Just off the top of my head, the O.J. Simpson and Jim Jones documentaries had warnings, and neither of those programs were intended for kids.

 
Ok, say I was molested by a teacher in school and reading anything about teachers triggers me.  Should that article from Pete also have had a trigger warning for victims of abuse from teachers because it mentions teachers?
Teachers?  No, that's kind of ridiculous.  But anything that involves molestation?  Sure.

I could see this being a debate if something happened without the warning.  I really don't understand anyone being up in arms because a warning was included in the example that started this.

 
Here's some additional information:

Common list of trigger warnings:

Imagine a world where every article you read is prefaced by warnings when any of those topics come up.  Imagine kids in schools requiring warnings before reading books with this content, or listening to lectures, on these issues.

Imagine a world of kids growing up feeling like they need to be prepared, in advance, to discuss topics that come up all the time.  Is this a better world where more healthy adults are being prepared in school, or a world where we're cranking out folks wholly unprepared to enter "the real world", or kids who are seeking to go out and rewrite "the real world" to put warning messages before potentially "emotionally reactive" messages are encountered.
I don't think any of the scenarios you've laid out here scare me at all. Don't have a problem envisioning that world. I spend plenty of time around the type of young people (millenials and younger) you are talking about, and find them to be much more capable than you give credit for here. They just have empathy for others and find it to be second nature to be inclusive and not offend people. It's hard-wired in, no discomfort or inconvenience at all. This is in a large, diverse city filled with all sorts from all backgrounds. 

I go home to the rural area I'm from and interact with older folks in my family and outside it, who live in their bubble and almost never leave their comfort zone. That includes their routines and the people they come in contact with.

I know which group I think is more aware and prepared for the "real world", and the enormous cross-section of people that contains. It isn't the group who is challenged by things like trigger warnings. 

 
i'll tell you this much, if i saw a video/gif of an animal being abused/killed/mistreated without warning, i would absolutely lose it.

to the point where if i knew the person who posted it, id visit them and smash them one
Most of the time, your reaction is pretty much their point in posting. 

For me it totally depends on context. On Facebook? Generally prefer it. In a movie theater when I'm intentionally going to a violent movie? No need. 

There's no need to warn people that an AC/DC or Slipknot concert has loud noise and lights. 

 
I replied in a similar vein in one of your other threads but I think trigger warnings are a manufactured social construct by the radical left as an attempt to limit free speech.  

How am I supposed to have a conversation with you about anything that's mildly controversial if I have to censor what I say so that I don't risk offending you?  It's not possible.

 
I replied in a similar vein in one of your other threads but I think trigger warnings are a manufactured social construct by the radical left as an attempt to limit free speech.  

How am I supposed to have a conversation with you about anything that's mildly controversial if I have to censor what I say so that I don't risk offending you?  It's not possible.
I think we're getting into the crux of where trigger warnings go too far.

In other words: most people aren't bothered by a trigger warning. But many people (if not most people) would be bothered by a trigger warning that also came with a demand to censor your speech.

 
I wish we would use them more often.

Meet someone new? I'd like a trigger warning. "Hey about 30min into meeting you im gonna start obsessively talking about the Mueller report" 

Thanks. Peace out.

"Hey, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Tim. Tim is super cool and he may to try win your soul for Christ, so if he asks you to come hang out at his lodge for some free skiing, he is going to preach Christ to you"

 
To be super clear, nobody is "up in arms" or "fixated" on the trigger warnings.

The discussion came up that they were a negative. 
Chet seems pretty up in arms only a few posts up. It obviously really bothers some people. And most of those people can't help but make it political. "Radical left", for instance. 

 
To be super clear, nobody is "up in arms" or "fixated" on the trigger warnings.

The discussion came up that they were a negative. 
What I was saying was if someone (Mayor in this example) wants to include a trigger warning then no big deal.  I don't know why anyone would care.  Equally, I wouldn't care if he had not included it either.  

I think the real debate would be the opposite scenario.   If someone were upset that it was NOT included and they were trying to mandate them.  There would be way too much gray area there for me.... where do you draw the line?   A lot of the examples brought up seem to be in this opposite scenario like what if there was no warning about teachers if someone had been molested by a teacher.

 
I replied in a similar vein in one of your other threads but I think trigger warnings are a manufactured social construct by the radical left as an attempt to limit free speech.  

How am I supposed to have a conversation with you about anything that's mildly controversial if I have to censor what I say so that I don't risk offending you?  It's not possible.
That seems to be the opposite of how trigger warnings are supposed to work, as far as I understand it. I thought it was to provide a warning that what you are about to say may be offensive or cause feelings of discomfort. You give the trigger warning so you don’t have to censor yourself. 

Am I off base on this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That’s seems to be the opposite of joe trigger warnings work, as far as I understand it. I thought it was to provide a warning that what you are about to say may be offensive or cause feelings of comfort. You give the trigger warning so you don’t have to censor yourself. 

Am I off base on this?
That's how I understand it. 

 
I think we're getting into the crux of where trigger warnings go too far.

In other words: most people aren't bothered by a trigger warning. But many people (if not most people) would be bothered by a trigger warning that also came with a demand to censor your speech.
A trigger warning is saying, "Don't bring up this topic or use this word because it will cause me to be uncomfortable or worse,"  so even if you don't explicitly ask someone to censor their language, the request is implicit.  

As I've also said before, I will never go out of my way to say something that would offend someone but I will also never use political correctness to censor myself--I will use my judgement to decide whether or not to say something.

 
What I was saying was if someone (Mayor in this example) wants to include a trigger warning then no big deal.  I don't know why anyone would care.  Equally, I wouldn't care if he had not included it either.  

I think the real debate would be the opposite scenario.   If someone were upset that it was NOT included and they were trying to mandate them.  There would be way too much gray area there for me.... where do you draw the line?   A lot of the examples brought up seem to be in this opposite scenario like what if there was no warning about teachers if someone had been molested by a teacher.
Cool. What some people are saying is that it's a negative to include a trigger warning like Buttigieg did. I don't think anyone is making it a big deal. Just a negative. 

 
Lots of typos in my post that I went back and fixed. 
To be clear though, I understand what @chet is saying too.

A warning is one thing. You warn and then say the thing.

Where it becomes different is more in a conversation and if it turns to "You can't say what you're saying to me because it triggers me". 

 
I think we're getting into the crux of where trigger warnings go too far.

In other words: most people aren't bothered by a trigger warning. But many people (if not most people) would be bothered by a trigger warning that also came with a demand to censor your speech.
A trigger warning is saying, "Don't bring up this topic or use this word because it will cause me to be uncomfortable or worse,"  so even if you don't explicitly ask someone to censor their language, the request is implicit.  
That's not what a trigger warning is.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top