Trigger Warnings
Is there an Obligation to Advise People of Potential Triggers Contained in Media?
I’ve really been grappling with this topic, as such most of this essay is more of a personal diary of my conflicting thoughts on the subject rather than a fully formed argument or report. In some ways this is more informal than most of the things I write. I don’t have a full conclusion on the topic. Any input y’all have is appreciated.
Trigger or content warnings have been a much contested issue on the internet. Some advocate that due to the weird and sometimes wonderful ways trauma, legitimate or otherwise, interact with the human psyche and physiology any empathetic individual should include them on any writing that might have an adverse reaction to those amongst us who are dealing with that trauma. Giving someone an advanced warning is a courtesy. Others bristle at the idea of being compelled to do anything they don’t want to.
On its face, I am largely sympathetic to the pro-trigger warning argument, who wants to accidentally send a poor traumatized soul on a spiral, however like any good idea it gets taken way too far and some of the issues with the logical underpinnings become clear.
What started as a simple courtesy grows beyond that to mind numbing effect. Why wouldn’t a person include a content warning? Are they not courteous? Are they using these sensitive topics for shock value? Developing some kind of twisted trauma porn? No one with any sympathy for the abused would ever use that abuse for its shock value. One must include these warnings otherwise they are not a good faith actor in the trauma space. What was once an uncommon courtesy has progressed beyond a suggestion into an obligation. Turning into a shibboleth for the morally upright. This occurrence is what mostly pushes me towards disliking trigger warnings as a concept. I admit that I am a somewhat normal person with somewhat normal beliefs about society etc., but in my spirit I have an untamable instinct to buck compelled activities and speech. It is not rational in the slightest. Something about a compulsion towards a specific behavior just rubs me the wrong way.
Choosing to include or exclude trigger warnings seems to be a very reasonable choice for most people. Not everyone is aiming their work at the edge cases of society, nor is writing with those edge cases in mind. A counterargument could be made that one should ponder deeply about the possible audience you could reach even beyond what one intended, but that is a burdensome mode of thought.
As I said, I am partially sympathetic to this point about trigger warnings. Some have compared trigger warnings to movie, or video game ratings. Providing consumers with a snap shot of what can be expected within without giving much explicit detail. This is the most compelling argument for me, but I constantly think back to the old “give an inch, lose a mile”.
I don’t like hurting or offending people. It happens more frequently than I’d like, often unintentionally. I am not apologetic for offenses of ignorance. It is beyond reasonable to hold someone to a standard they are not aware of, or that could be practically met. I don’t think the average person should be going out of their way to offend someone. That is not in keeping with my upbringing or my espoused religious beliefs.
That said, something about reshaping the bulk of society around the whims of a small minority seems wrong to me. Efficiency is something I am intuitively drawn towards. If I’ve ever had an issue with the way most people are doing things I either acquiesce, or have a very compelling reason to buck the status quo. I feel like that is the way to approach things.
There is no sense in knocking over social consensus for the sake of doing so. My main objection to trigger warnings and other associated behaviors is that it’s impossible to function in society on tip toes. If, every possible triggering phrase has to be caveated and hedges against, we get nowhere. The extreme end of the conversation (who more often than not tends to run the conversation regardless of subject these days) tends to ask far more than reasonable. That’s fine until the revolutionaries start moralizing compliance and dissidents. This is untenable.
I resent the hell out of the reading of intent on the part of an author who doesn’t include content/trigger warnings. Attributing a moral deficiency on anyone who chooses to not include said warnings is dubious, include them if you want. Champions of trigger warnings claiming that shock value is not a valid artistic goal is dumb. Secondly, the idea that anyone who isn’t including these warnings is handling the issue without compassion and only trying to add shock value is a feat of mental gymnastics. Thirdly, imputing that if you don’t include said warnings it’s cause you want to build some kind of shock/fear/trauma-porn is disgusting. The world is full of far too many self proscribed soothsayers and mind readers.
Include trigger warnings if you want to, or don’t. There should be no obligation towards any behavior.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I could be for trigger warnings in theory. But we always overcorrect in this country. Trigger warnings like giving a movie a consumerism rating, or something that actually spoils the movie is ridiculous to me. We have movie and TV ratings for a reason. If you can't handle graphic violence or capitalism, that's on the viewer. It's part of this trend where no one takes personal responsibility, it's always someone else's fault. I could go on and on but I'm going to stop there.