np NP: Wednesday, May 25, 2016

[hkmaly 490]

17 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

I have a cousin (by marriage, met her at my aunt's wedding) who is basically allergic to all animal protein.  Her family had to do the equivalent of a very strict kosher kitchen, with utensils and pans for her that *never* come into contact with meat, milk, cheese, etc.  When we played a board game, her sister asked me to move her pieces for her, because she'd been eating cheese and she didn't want to risk getting any on a piece and her sister then touching that piece and getting it on her fingers.  It was *that* bad an allergy.

10 hours ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

I didn't see an allergist for respiratory allergies until many years after I moved back to Austin, in the early '90s. He gave me my test results using a scale of one-to-five stars, five being the worst allergy. He gave me seventeen stars for ragweed and said he'd never seen anyone as allergic to it as I was. He also exceeded the five-star rating on mountain cedar (I think that was eleven stars, but I'm not sure) and on a couple of other tree pollens.

Well, I already knew my allergy is very mild compared to other people. I'm still surprised how many and how extreme examples showed so fast between this relatively limited group ...

[Scotty 1,061]

21 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Well, I already knew my allergy is very mild compared to other people. I'm still surprised how many and how extreme examples showed so fast between this relatively limited group ...

I'm honestly afraid everyone here would hate me if I tried contributing to this discussion.

[Vorlonagent 442]

24 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I'm honestly afraid everyone here would hate me if I tried contributing to this discussion.

Why are you very allergy-resistant?

[Scotty 1,061]

As far as I know, yeah, I mean mosquito bites are probably the only thing that gets me. But I could roll around in poison ivy and not be affected.

[Random Wanderer 13]

...I had to read this thread to have any clue what the heck this comic was talking about. When exactly was the term "trigger warning" popularized? I don't remember ever seeing it before.

[Scotty 1,061]

44 minutes ago, Random Wanderer said:

...I had to read this thread to have any clue what the heck this comic was talking about. When exactly was the term "trigger warning" popularized? I don't remember ever seeing it before.

I'm not sure...but in my first attempted to find out, I clicked the Urban Dictionary link google gave me and whoooo boy at all the examples given. A lot of which pertain to what these comics talk about, but there are mentions of stuff like PTSD so I can understand that the term would have originated in reference to actual victims of traumatic events so it's likely been around for decades, but obviously social media has made it easy to toss it around for any people consider offensive whether it's related to something traumatic or just something a person just doesn't like. That's basically what the whole issue is about, the fact that a term used for a serious mental condition is watered down by people using it to describe their negative opinions about an all female cast of a reboot movie, or a non asian being cast in a role that's been historically asian, or heck, a victory pose in a video game.

[hkmaly 490]

28 minutes ago, Scotty said:

or a non asian being cast in a role that's been historically asian, or heck, a victory pose in a video game.

... or someone black being cast as Norse god.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... or someone black being cast as Norse god.

That movie was awful. Loki is a jotun. They even ADMITTED he is a jotun. And they still got a human actor to play him.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

Hollywood has a severe bias towards humans.

Did you know that MGM never auditioned a single feline to play the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz?

[hkmaly 490]

21 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

On 05/28/2016 at 0:46 AM, hkmaly said:

... or someone black being cast as Norse god.

That movie was awful. Loki is a jotun. They even ADMITTED he is a jotun. And they still got a human actor to play him.

Well they DID also established he's shapeshifter. As I understand, this is not common trait between jotuns, and therefore only jotun capable of playing Loki would be Loki. ... and he MIGHT actually played himself, no matter if director knew.

[Pizzaboy10 6]

On 26/05/2016 at 10:52 PM, CritterKeeper said:

I'm just wondering on what basis you make that conclusion.  How do *you* know whether a given person is actually prone to genuine psychological harm?  Must you actually *see* them have an externally visible panic attack before you'll believe them?  If so, that seems like a rather harsh requirement; if not, then how do you decide who you believe and who you don't?  Because frankly, I see an awful lot of people whose criteria seems to be either whether they like or dislike the person in question, or whether they themselves are bothered by the thing that the other person is triggered by.  And if you are disbelieving people who have genuine psychological harm, that's probably causing them even more harm.

Well, you see on tumblr things like "trigger warning: food" for example. If there's anyone who's actually that badly affected by even images of food on the internet, then I figure they should be in a mental institution trying to cure that problem rather than freely browsing the web like that.

And you're right, I don't know weather or not the other person is actually going to be affected in that way, but if they are, they should be trying to fix their problem instead of just shoving it under the table where it'll make them an emotional wreck permanently. And if they aren't, then they shouldn't say otherwise. 

[Scotty 1,061]

I would also think that if someone were to say "I'm triggered by this." then they're more likely to be a troll. Someone who is actually bothered by something should state how and why it bothers them. Just saying "I'm triggered" tends to be followed up with "I'm triggered that you're triggered!" and any sense of there being any real discussion becomes lost.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

2 hours ago, Pizzaboy10 said:

Well, you see on tumblr things like "trigger warning: food" for example. If there's anyone who's actually that badly affected by even images of food on the internet, then I figure they should be in a mental institution trying to cure that problem rather than freely browsing the web like that.

Note: this post wil bring up subjects like rape, abuse, and torture.

People do misuse the term.  Usually either people who don't care whether someone else suffers, and don't think they should have to be courteous or respectful either, and therefore should be able to say anything they want to anyone they want; or people who enjoy seeing someone else in distress, and deliberately troll them.  Putting "Trigger warning: Food" likely is someone who is deliberately trying to distress people for whom the term is an important tool in coping with their trauma.  Or, perhaps, it's somone who know that there *is* someone within the group they're talking to who is recovering from anorexia nervosa or bulimia, both extremely serious life-threatening illnesses.

2 hours ago, Pizzaboy10 said:

And you're right, I don't know weather or not the other person is actually going to be affected in that way, but if they are, they should be trying to fix their problem instead of just shoving it under the table where it'll make them an emotional wreck permanently. And if they aren't, then they shouldn't say otherwise. 

Why on earth would you assume they're not "trying to fix their problem"??  Do you honestly think that someone  who has been raped, or abused, or a veteran with PTSD, is going to be able to learn how to cope with their problem while shut away, and shouldn't be allowed out in the world unless they somehow achieve perfect mental health first?  I hope you're prepared to pay a heck of a lot more in taxes to pay for all these people you want locked away for the rest of their lives!

A trigger warning isn't a way to avoid a problem completely, it's a way to get yourself mentally prepared for having to cope with something that might cause serious distress if you come across it without warning.  It still causes distress, but it's easier to cope with if you have some sort of warning it's coming.  If someone's story involves describing how they were raped, there are likely women in the audience who were themselves raped, and for some of them, it was recently enough or bad enough that they need that chance to prepare themselves mentally, or even remove themselves from the situation, before the description starts.  No one it doesn't apply to is harmed by including the trigger warning, so why are you so offended by them?

45 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I would also think that if someone were to say "I'm triggered by this." then they're more likely to be a troll. Someone who is actually bothered by something should state how and why it bothers them. Just saying "I'm triggered" tends to be followed up with "I'm triggered that you're triggered!" and any sense of there being any real discussion becomes lost.

And what business is it of yours?  You have the right to demand that someone dealing with a trauma has to tell you all about it before you'll believe that they were traumatized?  Sometimes people aren't ready to share their private mental health issues with the entire world.  Some people are so freshly traumatized by what they saw and did in the war that they can't talk about it except with their therapist(s).  And some people haven't told anyone that their father raped them every night from age six to fourteen, and they certainly shouldn't have to start wth you!

Putting a note like "Trigger warning: rape, incest" or starting a radio program with "This program contains graphic descriptions of torture" is not so heavy or unreasonable a burden that anyone has the right to dismiss and ignore it just because they don't feel like bothering.

It's like people who think they should have the right to light up a cigarette in the middle of a crowd any time they feel like it, and anyone with allergies, emphysema, COPD, or other respiratory problems, or who just wants to avoid getting cancer, well, that's just too damn bad for them, even if the smoke puts them in the hospital or the morgue.  (And yes, there are people with medicalconditions that bad, and they should be able to enjoy life just as much as anyone else.  I attended a convention back before the ban on smoking indoors or near doorways was quite so universal, with Wil Wheaten as a guest, in which he mentioned that he had a lung problem that serious, that tobacco smoke could kill him, and that was why the venue would be enforcing especially strict smoking rules.)

Now, if someone really does reply with "I'm triggered that you're triggered," then that person is a troll and a jerk.  It's that person you should be directing your ire at, not people who are doing their best to live with horrors in their past.

[Cpt. Obvious 73]

I honestly don't understand why we are discussing this. What use is it to get up in arms over the term 'trigger warning'? If it's not applicable to you it should be easy enough to ignore, and if it's applicable then it filled a purpose. Just remind yourself that 'you' are not 'everyone'

I usually don't do trigger warnings, but then I'm usually not discussing the most common trigger subjects. I do also try to adapt to the local customs for whatever forum I'm in. So if I'm posting on a suicide forum I will take a good look at my post and try to include trigger warnings that fit the site, the sub-forum and the thread. If I'm posting here though, you are not likely to find a trigger warning unless it's in a thread where some one expressively asked for it.

All in all I don't see the problem or the need to argue about them. If you think someone is spamming trigger warnings just ignore them. If someone gets in your face and demand you use trigger warnings then look at what they write and decide for your self if you think it's valid. Don't just assume that they are full of it because you're unable to see the problem, so don't be an ass, and if someone goes 'full retard' on you I suggest you seriously considers just moving on or blocking them if the site supports that option.

This isn't in any way the perfect way to treat this subject, just what I've found works for me. You can't please everyone, and you don't want to, but you should at least try  to not be an ass about it.
 

[Matoyak 51]

3 hours ago, Cpt. Obvious said:

If I'm posting here though, you are not likely to find a trigger warning unless it's in a thread where some one expressively asked for it.

You might want to look at the rules for the forum on this. Here they are.

To quote: "Certain topics are highly volatile and/or triggering for some people. Examples would be abuse, self-harm, sexual molestation or predation, serious injuries or illness, among others. It is not forbidden to discuss these but it is requested to add a content warning or note to the posts or threads these might appear in."

[Scotty 1,061]

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

And what business is it of yours?  You have the right to demand that someone dealing with a trauma has to tell you all about it before you'll believe that they were traumatized?  Sometimes people aren't ready to share their private mental health issues with the entire world.  Some people are so freshly traumatized by what they saw and did in the war that they can't talk about it except with their therapist(s).  And some people haven't told anyone that their father raped them every night from age six to fourteen, and they certainly shouldn't have to start wth you!

Putting a note like "Trigger warning: rape, incest" or starting a radio program with "This program contains graphic descriptions of torture" is not so heavy or unreasonable a burden that anyone has the right to dismiss and ignore it just because they don't feel like bothering.

It's like people who think they should have the right to light up a cigarette in the middle of a crowd any time they feel like it, and anyone with allergies, emphysema, COPD, or other respiratory problems, or who just wants to avoid getting cancer, well, that's just too damn bad for them, even if the smoke puts them in the hospital or the morgue.  (And yes, there are people with medicalconditions that bad, and they should be able to enjoy life just as much as anyone else.  I attended a convention back before the ban on smoking indoors or near doorways was quite so universal, with Wil Wheaten as a guest, in which he mentioned that he had a lung problem that serious, that tobacco smoke could kill him, and that was why the venue would be enforcing especially strict smoking rules.)

Now, if someone really does reply with "I'm triggered that you're triggered," then that person is a troll and a jerk.  It's that person you should be directing your ire at, not people who are doing their best to live with horrors in their past.

If someone doesn't want to go into details about a traumatic experience, I have no problem with it. But something as simple as "I've been through similar and so I don't enjoy this at all." is a lot easier to believe as genuine than "You suck for bringing up this subject matter!"

It really stinks that internet culture is such that there are people who will go out of their way to devalue real issues by stirring up tensions rather than let people have civil discussion. David Willis recently put up a Dumbing of Age strip with a huge warning that it had the subject of suicide in it, and judging by his commentary, there were still people being A-holes about it. So basically whenever stuff like this appears on social media, I'm left wondering "are these people genuinely affected by this, or are they being trolls" and more often then not, I'm thinking that those that are vocal about something in this manner are all trolls and the ones that are truely affected by these issues are afraid to say anything out of fear they get lumped in with the trolls, which yes, I guess that does sound like I'm saying "trolls until proven not trolls", but it can be really difficult for me to see it any other way sometimes, and it does bother me that it's difficult.

[hkmaly 490]

9 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Putting a note like "Trigger warning: rape, incest" or starting a radio program with "This program contains graphic descriptions of torture" is not so heavy or unreasonable a burden that anyone has the right to dismiss and ignore it just because they don't feel like bothering.

Things like rape, incest and torture are both 1) not discussed often and 2) known to cause actual serious conditions.

Problem is when someone complains about missing trigger warning for topics which are either extremely likely to be discussed - including just locally, like it doesn't make sense to add "Trigger warning: transformations" to posts on EGS forum because anyone having problems with transformations will avoid EGS with great margin - or to something which seems unlikely to trigger anyone ... although your example with food shows that sometimes it's not obvious what can be trigger.

(I suppose there is no need for ANY trigger warnings on forum for Games of Thrones. Alternatively, they should be in page heading, so no need to include them in posts.)

3 hours ago, Scotty said:

I'm thinking that those that are vocal about something in this manner are all trolls and the ones that are truely affected by these issues are afraid to say anything out of fear they get lumped in with the trolls

Actually, I would suspect that people truly affected will prefer to NOT discuss it, so they wouldn't be vocal in complains due to that. Meanwhile, trolls are usually vocal enough to over-talk people having normal discussion, so they have even less problems over-talking affected people ...

[Pizzaboy10 6]

9 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Note: this post wil bring up subjects like rape, abuse, and torture.

People do misuse the term.  Usually either people who don't care whether someone else suffers...

Alright, I guess on second thoughts (or more like 4th thoughts) I figure I went too far off the other end and didn't kept trying to make up stuff to justify it. In the end, I just don't like it when people misuse the term "trigger" for menial stuff, and I'm probably just falling for trolls and stuff. I'm no psychologist, and I shouldn't pretend to be one.

You got me good.

[hkmaly 490]

8 hours ago, Cpt. Obvious said:

All in all I don't see the problem or the need to argue about them. If you think someone is spamming trigger warnings just ignore them. If someone gets in your face and demand you use trigger warnings then look at what they write and decide for your self if you think it's valid. Don't just assume that they are full of it because you're unable to see the problem, so don't be an ass, and if someone goes 'full retard' on you I suggest you seriously considers just moving on or blocking them if the site supports that option.

.... hmmm ... by the way, why there is no "inverse ban" option on forum (or at least, on most forums), meaning a way to make specific person not see your posts?

[Scotty 1,061]

31 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

.... hmmm ... by the way, why there is no "inverse ban" option on forum (or at least, on most forums), meaning a way to make specific person not see your posts?

I know some places have the option of "muting" people so you don't see their posts, but never heard of an "I don't want this person seeing my posts" option, seems like something that could be abused like a person giving themself the ability to trashtalk another person, moderators would have to be immune to such an option though.

[hkmaly 490]

21 hours ago, Scotty said:

22 hours ago, hkmaly said:

.... hmmm ... by the way, why there is no "inverse ban" option on forum (or at least, on most forums), meaning a way to make specific person not see your posts?

I know some places have the option of "muting" people so you don't see their posts, but never heard of an "I don't want this person seeing my posts" option, seems like something that could be abused like a person giving themself the ability to trashtalk another person, moderators would have to be immune to such an option though.

... yes I guess it's more inverse mute than inverse ban. And moderators would OBVIOUSLY be immune (they're probably need to be immune to muting as well) which would likely take care of the abuse.

[Scotty 1,061]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

... yes I guess it's more inverse mute than inverse ban. And moderators would OBVIOUSLY be immune (they're probably need to be immune to muting as well) which would likely take care of the abuse.

Not sure what muting a moderator would accomplish other than possibly expediting a ban.

[Matoyak 51]

16 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Unintentional blank post Please delete

[This page post intentionally left blank]

[Cpt. Obvious 73]

On den 30 maj 2016 at 9:16 PM, Matoyak said:

You might want to look at the rules for the forum on this. Here they are.

To quote: "Certain topics are highly volatile and/or triggering for some people. Examples would be abuse, self-harm, sexual molestation or predation, serious injuries or illness, among others. It is not forbidden to discuss these but it is requested to add a content warning or note to the posts or threads these might appear in."

You cherry picked that a bit. The full text read:

Quote

I usually don't do trigger warnings, but then I'm usually not discussing the most common trigger subjects. I do also try to adapt to the local customs for whatever forum I'm in. So if I'm posting on a suicide forum I will take a good look at my post and try to include trigger warnings that fit the site, the sub-forum and the thread. If I'm posting here though, you are not likely to find a trigger warning unless it's in a thread where some one expressively asked for it.


 

The key parts here is "I usually don't do trigger warnings, but then I'm usually not discussing the most common trigger subjects." and "If I'm posting here though, you are not likely to find a trigger warning unless it's in a thread where some one expressively asked for it."

There were also the "I do also try to adapt to the local customs" which includes reading the forum rules and observing and learning from other posters and the moderators.

For this to be such a big discussion I have a hard time remembering reading any posts containing trigger warnings in this forum. Most users seem to be willing to step carefully, and on the few occasions discussions break down or turns ugly the moderator has been able to stop it, often with just a warning.

One problem is that triggers are highly personal, so less common trigger subjects are easy to stumble on. When that happens I don't know anything better than take notes and try to avoid being an ass.

On den 31 maj 2016 at 3:03 AM, Scotty said:

I know some places have the option of "muting" people so you don't see their posts, but never heard of an "I don't want this person seeing my posts" option, seems like something that could be abused like a person giving themself the ability to trashtalk another person, moderators would have to be immune to such an option though.

A way around that would be to have the forum software parse the posts and make them visible to a reverse-muted  user if their user name is mentioned or if they are quoted. That could be circumvented by the poster using nicknames, such as Cpt. Oblivious in my case, but then it would also be obvious to those reading the posts that it's trash talk.

All in all I think it would be an invitation for misuse, so it's probably just as well that it's not an option.

(and I'm writing this blind as my broswer thinks white on white is perfectly fine when editing a post...)

[Scotty 1,061]

18 minutes ago, Cpt. Obvious said:

(and I'm writing this blind as my broswer thinks white on white is perfectly fine when editing a post...)

It's not just you, I think it's the forums itself that's doing that, switching to source lets you see the text but you also see all the coding as well.