This article for New Republic recently sourced one of my columns for the Daily Targum. And, as the saying goes - any press is good press. However, the author for this post misses a serious point about Trigger Warnings. In order to really critique her work, we need to break apart these two statements: More importantly, they reinforce the fear of words by depicting an ever-expanding number of articles and books as dangerous and requiring of regulation. By framing more public spaces, from the Internet to the college classroom, as full of infinite yet ill-defined hazards, trigger warnings encourage us to think of ourselves as more weak and fragile than we really are. By framing more public spaces, from the Internet to the college classroom, as full of infinite yet ill-defined hazards, trigger warnings encourage us to think of ourselves as more weak and fragile than we really are. For an individual who does not need to utilize Trigger Warnings, their usage might seem rather trivial. However, for those of us with mental illnesses with triggering experiences - such as myself, as an individual with OCD - trigger warnings are often something that we internally utilize in the first place. We often create our own trigger warnings, in order to protect ourselves from content that activates intrusive thoughts. We often create these warnings in different ways - we ask friends, we sample content, we remember past experiences - but, above all, we utilize them on a daily basis. This creates an experience, however, where we simply choose not to expose ourselves to material in order to protect ourselves. There are certain books I simply will not read, because their content will trigger me. There is music I will not listen to, because of its content. There are movies I will not watch, because I do not know how gruesome its content will be. And there are video games I will never play, because I am afraid of the intrusive anxiety they will trigger... This is not an issue where I am simply [thinking] of [myself] as more weak and fragile [than I really am]. I know my limits; I know them very well. This is a situation where one scene in a video game, book, or movie will send me into an uncontrollable panic attack for several days, a week, or even a month (all three have happened). This is a situation where I need someone to give me a handicap - a warning - in order to function to my fullest potential in every day life. Luckily, trigger warnings help protect those of us with OCD, PTSD, and other mental illnesses. These warnings help give us the opportunity to spot content that could trigger anxiety attacks and traumatic experiences. They help work with us, or give us an opportunity to approach content when we are ready. This is where the authors piece falls flat. The author assumes that people never controlled their exposure. As her image points out, she assumes that society and culture are blinding or censoring themselves. This is not what is happening - society and culture are not blinding exposure, but, rather, creating a system which works with individuals who need to consent to their own exposure to triggering content. And anyone who has ever implemented a TW knows very well that TWs do NOT equal censorship. Publications that censor their content on account of trigger warnings are a.) irresponsible, b.) incompetent, and c.) fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of TWs. Its important to note, though, that those of us with trigger-based mental illnesses have been creating our own system for triggers for centuries. We have chosen not to expose ourselves to content - often huge collections of narratives - in order to protect ourselves. This is something we have been forced to internalize it, and it is often a complex structure which forces us to isolate ourselves, and rely on ourselves. This is where the problem arises - when society finally starts creating the ability for us to protect ourselves, individuals - such as the author - cry afowl and claim that we are creating a state of paranoia. How? Does the author realize that these warnings are exactly the same thing that those with mental illnesses have been using for years? Does the author understand that the right to consent to exposure on the Internet is a fundamental choice on the individuals behalf? The author asks us to stick our hand into the fire in order to tell whether its hot. She asks us to dip our finger into an acid beaker, in order to measure its pH. This is fundamentally flawed thinking, and works to assure that we continue sticking our hands into the boiling water.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:10:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015