15
16

Neil Gaiman and Trigger Warnings (self.SRSDiscussion)

Hellkyte が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]LeRedditeurDe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

she went to see the movie, which is essentially a two hour story about child abuse

lol, maybe she should have watched the trailer or read a short summary

[–]LadyRavenEye 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Wow thanks for the contribution, it really adds to the discussion! Especially since I explicitly said:

As per usual, she scoured the internet for potential triggering content. Finding nothing mentioned, she went to see the movie

immediately before what you quoted!

[–]LeRedditeurDe 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (13子コメント)

eh I just watched the trailer, the childabuse is interpretation but if you find that in the movie triggering so would you in the trailer

[–]LadyRavenEye 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Um, triggers don't affect people all in the same way... so please don't presume to project your own, non-triggered reaction onto my friend who has PTSD, please?

[–]MemeticParadigm 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (6子コメント)

triggers don't affect people all in the same way

Obviously, this is true, but the reality of the situation is that, if the way triggers effect a certain individual diverge so completely from the rest of the population that she can watch the preview, scour the internet for information about potentially triggering content and find nothing indicating she will be triggered based on what other people are saying, and then still be so severely triggered, then trigger warnings can only really be of very limited use to that individual.

Since trigger warnings have to be placed by other people, those people can't place trigger warnings that protect your friend unless they understand what triggers her specifically - but they can't be specific to just your friend, they have to understand the specific way that every individual is triggered. Since they can't possibly know/understand the psychological underpinnings of every reaction any individual will have, they have to either only put trigger warnings on those things which are very generally triggering - in which case it sounds like Chippie would not have been labeled with a child abuse trigger, since it sounds like your friend's reaction is fairly specific to her - or they have to put trigger warnings on anything that could possibly be triggering - in which case people who get triggered either have to just avoid 90% of all media, or ignore the warnings and just hope that any given warning is just because of some small detail that could possibly trigger a very small subset of people that they don't belong to.

In short, you have to set the threshold for what you label as triggering somewhere, so any decrease in false negatives (triggering material not labeled as such) is necessarily accompanied by an increase in false positives (non-triggering material labeled with trigger warnings), and the more false positives you have, the less useful the true positives (triggering material labeled as such) become.

[–]LadyRavenEye -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Literally all she needed was a tw: child abuse. Literally. And nowhere online were the reviews explicit about the content.

[–]MemeticParadigm 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, it's a movie I want to see, but haven't had a chance yet, so it's difficult for me to judge where that would effectively set the threshold.

My concern, though, is this: If I'm a person who, unlike your friend, can't handle intensely triggering content related to child abuse even when I'm ready for it, so I just can't watch things labeled with "tw: child abuse" at all, and we set a threshold low enough that the content in Chappie earns it a "tw: child abuse" for the sake of people like your friend, how much content that has relatively mild scenes that could be interpreted as child abuse do I now have to avoid completely, even though they are well within what I can handle?

Now, I've gotta say that I feel a little bit uncomfortable even making that argument because I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how much of the triggering content is pretty straightforward/blatant vs how much is primarily your friend's personal interpretation, but that's my worry - that if we label things according to the most sensitive amongst us, we make those labels less useful to those who are less sensitive but still very much in need of trigger warnings.

[–]WorkshopVillage 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

As per usual, she scoured the internet for potential triggering content. Finding nothing mentioned, she went to see the movie

The movie is like, two hours of adults physically and emotionally abusing a robot that is described as basically a baby/child the whole way through.

I don't want to belittle your friends experience or suggest she is necessarily to blame for her negative reaction to the film, but I can't help but take your story with a grain of salt when you claim your friend "scoured the internet for potential triggering content" but failed to find any despite the entire movie apparently being a violent coming of age story.

I typed "Chappie Review Abuse" into Google and found this in under 5 minutes

Although he can learn quickly, he maintains the emotions of a child, and so it’s delightful to see him play around and heartbreaking to watch him suffer abuse. One of the saddest scenes I’m sure I’ll see this year is Chappie trying to understand why people are attacking him, and begging them to stop

Perhaps you should have a talk with your friend about using search engines effectively? It might really help her out in the future.

[–]LadyRavenEye -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay, I said I'm out, but in the interest of defending my friend, she saw it opening night. There was no mention of the child abuse in reviews she read before then.

[–]MySilverWhining 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have to agree with the others who say this attitude completely invalidates the idea of trigger warnings. If I can't predict what will be triggering for other people and what will, how can I provide a trigger warning beyond a plot summary? It's easy to understand battlefield PTSD being triggered by fireworks because we can all relate to being startled by sudden loud noises. That's easy for me to understand because I can project from my own experience. Other cases are essentially impossible to predict because projecting from our own experience doesn't work. The case of Chappie and your friend proves that even a comprehensive surface summary of a work is insufficient; effective trigger warnings have to extend beyond concrete similarities to artistic metaphor. People see different things in art depending on their cultural and intellectual background. Hell, I've heard the song Bright Red a hundred times and I just recently made a connection to a dim memory of a short story I read in college, and I thought, "This song is about rape," and I wondered about that until eventually I reread the story and realized the connection was just a figment of my imagination, but by now the idea that the song is about rape is embedded in my head, but I feel foolish because I can't justify that idea any longer, so should I put a trigger warning on it or not?

[–]LeRedditeurDe 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ok if this is true then it would not be possible to publish trigger warnings for any form of media. To be completely sure you'd have to include everything one might find offensive even if it isn't obvious and even if most people wouldn't even say that it even appears in it. The lists would be huge, ten sites min.

[–]LadyRavenEye -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

everything one might find offensive

Triggers! Are not!! about!! your feelings!!!

They are about severe reactions to past trauma! They cause actual physical and mental responses that lead to regressive, negative behavior.

[–]LeRedditeurDe 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

yeah alright but still how do you want to find all the possible triggers in any form of media, there might be hundreds of them and even finding them all could take lots of people lots of time, and even if they found them all the list would be huge and totally unpractical, furthermore it would make lots of people avoid watching or reading something they might enjoy or have no problem at all with because even if there is the slightest possibility that one scene might be triggering then it would be included in the list. This would practically make it impossible for people who have PTSD to conscume any media at all.

[–]LadyRavenEye -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No one is saying every single thing that could possibly trigger someone should be included, just the ones that are common.

To use my friend, she is able to consume media with child abuse in it--if she knows beforehand that might be an issue. That's the way she can do it. But you know, maybe she couldn't, and there's nothing wrong with that? I don't like that the show Agent Carter has no worthwhile characters of color, so I haven't watched it. How is that different than choosing not to watch something because it has potentially triggering content to you? (hint: it isn't)

edit: I have another friend who is still in recovery from an obscenely abusive relationship. Just mentioning her ex in certain contexts can trigger her to the point of panic attacks. So, as her friends, we know this, and take it into consideration. She's not asking for his name to come with a trigger warning on every piece of media she comes into contact with, but since we know about it, we are able to be considerate of her trauma.