If literature does not contain at least the potential to "trigger", then what is it really about? That is, if a piece of literature contains nothing offensive, then what does it do? Is it really literature? "Trigger" is a broad term that could mean many things. I think that if we wanted to we could find triggers for someone out there in many if not most or all classic texts. A trigger can be related to a rape, an abuse, a death, signficant trauma, emotional abuse, systemized oppression, etc - and many people do not use "trigger" to mean, as it was probably originally meant, that "Experiencing this can be destabilizing to my mental health to the extent that I may have a breakdown or other significant, non-normative, negative reactions that would be excessively detrimental to me and my mental health." Remove all possible triggers from literature, though, and I think we would get less interesting, less potent, and less able-to-form-social-commentary literature. If experiencing something or hearing about something simply upsets you, I don't think it's a trigger and I think it's a misuse of the term to cry "Trigger warning!" Some things simply are upsetting and should upset people. If an experience or topic is likely to have significant emotional/mental/physical repercussions that may destabilize one's mental state or health, or undo growth work, then I think it's fair to identify it as a trigger and try to avoid it (if you are the person with the trigger). I have experienced a lot of awful shit in my life but apparently none of it has ever given me PTSD. I have a hard time relating to some people when they discuss triggers. However, I am willing to believe they are a real and necessary thing - but I doubt they are for as many people as who say they are. And I think we talk about triggers in general/on the internet an awful lot when in reality I suspect trigger sufferers are a very small minority.
Since lifestyled has me muted I'll just call the ignorant mother fucker out here : Oh yes! I'm definitely a new hubski member! I definitely did NOT read the article and respond to its contents, which heavily implied as part of its opening paragraphs that "all potential triggers should be removed from literature" in an attempt to demonstrate that "this might be a bad thing ." NO, asshole, I don't believe that those who are honestly trying to encourage and propagate the use of trigger warnings are attempting to whitewash literature in order to ensure all are appeased. You wanna try a conspiracy theory why don't you try reading the contents of the article, to which I was (surprisingly! - yeah sorry buddy this isn't reddit and I am actually going to read a link before masturbating on about my opinion) responding? Maybe then you will see the - oh I believe it's called - context to which I was responding. Or have they not got around to teaching you what context is in eighth grade yet? Hey p.s. Mr. still-an-asshole, I'd like to add that "Censorship" = a word I not only never used but never even fucking implied in my statements regarding trigger warnings. I stand by the idea that literature devoid of all potential triggers is not literature in all. In fact, it would be better compared to soy protein: completely inoffensive and completely devoid of taste, flavor, nuance, and in short, interest. You're pissed off at the article. You're not actually pissed off at me. Go and reread some shit, you jackass. P. P.S. If you decide to 'rebut' this comment by correcting my mobile-typed spelling or grammar, you have already lost. Only a person who cannot prove their actual point resorts to correcting grammar instead. P.p.p.s. Is this when I start talking about all the times I've been raped, molested and/or harassed to prove the validity of my remark? Because fuq that.
It's funny, I just saw that lifestyled blocked me as well, but as far as I can tell I've never even addressed his comments before. I'd say he's going around the thread blocking people who dare to have a different opinion to him. Don't take it personally. If he wants an echo chamber, let him have it.
you know there's a difference between "offensive" and "graphically obscene" right? I mean, I just finished Persona 2: Innocent Sin and that game dealt with a lot of heavy shit but I never had to witness someone's head exploding in slow motion, nor did I have to read a text box that described rape down to the motion of the pubic hairs. and nobody is trying to "remove all possible triggers from literature." like, where in the fuck do you people get this conspiracy theory from? so many people seem to think that trigger warning = censorship for absolutely no reason other than to make themselves become a victim of "the PC police" and wax poetic about how "triggers might be real but you're all probably making it up anyway". jesus christ, I thought hubski was supposed to be better than reddit but it's like all the FPHers and gamergaters are just flooding this place.