Ask Lemmy

I absolutely appreciate them. They give me the chance to decide for myself whether to engage with a topic, depending on where I'm at. Suicide is often hard for me to deal with, due to my own family circumstances, so sometimes I want to get in and help people who are struggling, but other times, I just need to avoid the discussion for my own wellbeing. Content warnings give me the opportunity to make that choice

Yes, they are. For a literature class, I taught a very short story, which is expertly written, about an infant who is scalded. It’s a fantastic piece, but something I’d totally expect some people to opt out of given the content.

Depends on the magnitude of what is being warned of.

"Warning, graphic gore"? Absolutely appreciated. "Contains scenes of actual combat, those with PTSD may wish to leave the room"? Yeah totally reasonable. "This book contains vivid descriptions of sexual abuse"? I can see why people would be squicked out by that.

But then we get into the absurd side of it. A film about the Holocaust, needing to warn its viewers that some contents may be distressing? Wow. You don't say. A memoir about a tragic death, needing to put a warning that... someone dies? "This politics discussion may discuss slavery, racism, and oppression"? Oh no, we have to think about upsetting things that happened!

And before someone suggests those are unrealistic hyperbole, those are all things I've seen. I don't feel those are helpful.

They are harmless, so don't see why not. I rather them to censorship. I remember mainstream media was heavily editing/censoring the footage of the killing of Charlie Kirk, and even posting the "far away" shot onto the same platforms that had close up, raw, uncensored footage. I heard it debated by them if a content warning and uncensored footage would be more beneficial.

I think the high quality footage itself of it actually made people more sympathetic/outraged about it, just seeing a man die that way

Really depends on what it is. If it’s gore I would like to be warned beforehand because I don’t like gore and if I’m eating then it’s even more disturbing. So they can be beneficial but as I said it's heavily dependant on what's being warned against. I once saw “tw: food” on a post that had a photo of someone’s McDonald’s meal and thought that was stupid

I feel a little anxious as soon as I read Trigger Warning

I feel a lot more anxious when a show dumps graphic violence or ear piercing screams on me with no warning.

Warnings tend to at least let me adjust my TV volume in advance. Much better than those YouTube clips or TikTok videos that try to blow out my speakers in the first five seconds

I feel some kind of warning is deeply important, as it allows people to decide to skip a post instead of reading it in detail. Personally, I prefer to be given a chance to gird my brain against the potential onslaught of feelings that a serious, dark topic post might bring up. If I am ready to read and engage with a post of that nature, often a productive discussion is had as a result. As for general Trigger Warnings, I appreciate those as they activate my automated mental hardening responses and allow me to read without being overly concerned or stressed.

Seeing unexpected gore has ruined my day before. It's not that hard to give a warning.

Yes, I find them beneficial. I prefer when the warning itself is spoilered too. That way I can choose to totally swerve the content and don't face anxiety over the subject matter at all.

If you get a little anxious when you read a trigger warning that is your issue to deal with.

I don't think I've ever been dissuaded by one, but I'm glad they are there for the people who appreciate them.

I mean, I might just prefer:

[warning: rape, gore]

or whatever awfulness is present.

Do you prefer to see someone crushed by heavy machinery, or something like that, without a warning? You don't know when you get into a wrong part of the internet

I only want to know gore/nsfl. otherwise im on the internet and i know what community im on.

Do you feel content warnings are beneficial?

Nope. Quite the contrary.

But it may be worth mentioning I'm getting old (nearing my 60s) and I have been educated in a now remote time where the idea that being confronted with hardship and with failure is what would help us learn to overcome them. Not being shielded from them.

do you thing there are better ways to address dark topics?

Confront shit ideas with better ideas. The rest, any form of censorship or control, never works, never did and I doubt will ever.

Heck, aged 16 my best friend and I decided to read Mein Kampf in order to understand how that 'Nazi' stuff managed to seduce so many people. While we were reading it, as seriously as we would have read any other book, we just discussed it freely meaning without fear of being judged ('being cancelled' one may say nowadays): we would point out stupid shit as well as things that seemed not, to young us at least, not that stupid trying to confront them through a free and open discussion. Decades later, I can safely say it was one of the best cure against me ever risking getting 'seduced' by those shit ideas and the hate they thrive(d) on.

It depends on the implementation. Some good implementations are: Tags on AO3, Content Warnings at the beginning Movies/TV, using tags on the fediverse There is one implementation that really bothers me and it's the Content Warning on the fediverse, the fact that it hides the whole post by default means that most of the time I end up expanding the content and seeing it anyways. I would prefer if the fediverse would just move to spoiler tags where you can hide only the content that the warning is for:

Just to head this off at the pass, because someone is bound to bring up exposure therapy: hi, hello, I am someone who has been through exposure therapy (technically Exposure/Response Prevention, or ERP). Yes, it is broadly speaking true that avoiding triggers increases anxiety in the long run. However, one thing that was stressed to me over and over in ERP is that exposures have to be VOLUNTARY to be beneficial. Meaning, just hucking a tarantula at someone with arachnophobia is going to do far more harm than good. Likewise showing them a bunch of pictures of spiders with no warning. However, putting a content warning puts the decision to engage back into the hands of the person with the phobia (or trauma, eating disorder, etc), which effectively turns it into a voluntary exposure should they choose to engage.

Most people like to be coddled, few with admit it but it's clearly a preference. They don't bother me but I do my best to ignore them.

I prefer to go in with a little foreknowledge as possible, life doesn't have trigger warnings, why should art? Bumpers are for children.

And this is not a, "I am very bad ass, nothing bothers me!" there are things that will consistently 'trigger' me, literally nope out but I'm a "buy the ticket, take the ride" type of person.

I also have a tendency to automatically dismiss groupthink. Occasionally to my own detriment but I'd rather maintained my agency rather than hand it off to a human void I rarely agree with.

To each their own. They don't benefit me because they aren't for me.

To answer the second half, if I had the wherewithal, my improvement would be for people to predefined their triggers and allow the medium to alert only when a trigger matches.

I saw a post once that had a content warning for music. Just. Music.

Depends on what are they warning me about. If it is about gore of something similar I can appreciate it, if it about foul language they can shove that warning up their asses.

I find them pointless to me (sometimes irritating as noise and insurrection), but I understand they could be helpful and useful for others, so it's fine to me when people use them. I simply was past them.

I like them, and they aren't controversial. Content warnings have been around since tv stations invented the PG rating

My life has been pretty trauma free, but even I sometimes benefit from trigger warnings. Sometimes you're just not in the mood for certain themes.

I was once on a long flight to attend the funeral of a close friend, and was watching a movie on the flight. I didn't know there'd be a funeral scene, and that hit way harder in the state of mind I was in at the time. I don't regret watching the movie, but it did give me a glimpse of how triggers work, in a form probably much milder than how people with real trauma would experience it.

In general I often find that accommodations for people with special needs often also benefit the general population. Accessible web design is often more pleasant to use in my experience, and probably easier for search engines also.

If it's NSFW or NSFL, I appreciate the warning.

Other stuff, I don't care personally, but if others find it helpful, that's fine by me.

Nope. Not at all.

I hate graphic depictions of sexual violence. Moves like "A Clockwork Orange", "The Accused", and "Requiem for a Dream" all have scenes that I wish I didn't remember.

Content warnings are information that allow media watchers to make informed decisions. People who are annoyed by them are just contrarian assholes with the teenage mentality that gore and cusswords are cool.

Depends. I'm fine with most stuff, but I certainly want warnings if a video is titled "revolving door fail" but the content warning is "NSFL" (dude got his fingers caught and visibly cut off)

Not having a NSFL tag would be a major disservice to the viewer.

Prudish origins aside... I do think they're an excellent tool for parents and individuals to make informed choices. It's not practical to screen everything yourself. Going to a 3rd party like rotten tomato's is just option A with extra steps.

All content is upsetting to someone.

Many commenters would self-censor, at best, toward a "common man" kind of shock tolerance. This doesn't help those people who need trigger warnings for way more.

I can't see how to resolve that vast gulf.

I appreciate them. You are what you eat. That goes for what you put in your eyes and ears as much as your mouth

I don't think they serve any other purpose than to signal that the person wishes to come across as considerate.

If it's gore, porn or such then yeah but if we're speaking of just text then no.

eh, shit i've read and seen on a screen, while it may have bothered me at the time, isn't actual trauma, which does not fucking ask permission.

And yeah, there's media that triggers that-but it's media. I close it. I leave. I can. it's not actually happening to me, right now.

I think it's a decent notion, to annotate. It's for sure people trying to be good for one another, and that's laudable.

But. As I said, the worst of the world does not ask permission, and I think enforcement of content tags or what have you would likely lead directly to even more oppression and censorship in the storm of that which we are currently in.

I will say ao3's pretty on point about it, from what i've seen-it's voluntary, and it's actually voluntary. How you keep that across the ages is anyone's guess

I think it's content dependent. I lean towards not having them, but I can think of a couple episodes of the magicians where I would have appreciated the warning instead of the after the fact help line screen. It's also true that adding a warning lessens the impact of the scene being warned about which I think is also counterproductive.

I think we need more granular ratings than we currently have. Kickass and I Spit on Your Grave having the same R rating is essentially meaningless.

Definitely even if i never bother opting out due to it is more than fair to warn people about things like gore and graphic descriptions of death.