Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Trigger Warnings?

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:29:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Trigger warnings have actually been proven to make things worse. See my debate on it.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:30:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:29:28 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Trigger warnings have actually been proven to make things worse. See my debate on it.

Link?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:13:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

The intention may not be stupid, but the execution and logic is.
How am I supposed to know if my audience would have PTSD, or what I say would cause a flashback? For example, rape, child abuse, mugging, war, a nervous breakdown at the office, etc.

Let's take war. Should I be aware that my retelling of a war story, of which was worse than anything PTSD Joe went through, might cause him a relapse in him, while I have no PTSD? Should I be vilified for triggering his PTSD when I did not think my story would have, even if it was a simple allusion to one like "it reminds me of when I was a POW"?

Does the same logic apply to people how are crazy obsessed with something, so people should avoid talking about it? Should I whisper that I saw a celebrity at the mall so superfangirl1 doesn't start shrieking and making a scene in an office setting?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:53:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:13:44 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

The intention may not be stupid, but the execution and logic is.

Yes. The intention is to not hurt people unnecessarily. Execution is on a case-by-case basis. As far as I'm aware, there is no standardized or generalized way to provide trigger warnings, so I don't see how we can make general statements about execution.

How am I supposed to know if my audience would have PTSD, or what I say would cause a flashback? For example, rape, child abuse, mugging, war, a nervous breakdown at the office, etc.

That's part of the point. You don't know, so if you want to avoid accidentally causing someone to relive a traumatic experience and experience a great degree of unnecessary pain, all you need to do is ask whether they'd be okay with you bringing it up.

Let's take war. Should I be aware that my retelling of a war story, of which was worse than anything PTSD Joe went through, might cause him a relapse in him, while I have no PTSD? Should I be vilified for triggering his PTSD when I did not think my story would have, even if it was a simple allusion to one like "it reminds me of when I was a POW"?

You shouldn't be vilified. But it takes close to no effort to avoid hurting someone in that situation. Being ignorant of the fact that you might cause damage doesn't necessarily free you from taking responsibility for the damage you may have inadvertently caused, especially when it would be so easy to avoid.

I don't think "it reminds of when I was a POW" triggers people in a clinically valid way, but I'm not sure. I've certainly never heard of that. If people are saying it is without being sincere about it, that is irresponsible on their part.

Does the same logic apply to people how are crazy obsessed with something, so people should avoid talking about it? Should I whisper that I saw a celebrity at the mall so superfangirl1 doesn't start shrieking and making a scene in an office setting?

These don't appear to be comparable or analogous situations in any meaningful sense.
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:13:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:53:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 10:13:44 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

The intention may not be stupid, but the execution and logic is.

Yes. The intention is to not hurt people unnecessarily. Execution is on a case-by-case basis. As far as I'm aware, there is no standardized or generalized way to provide trigger warnings, so I don't see how we can make general statements about execution.

How am I supposed to know if my audience would have PTSD, or what I say would cause a flashback? For example, rape, child abuse, mugging, war, a nervous breakdown at the office, etc.

That's part of the point. You don't know, so if you want to avoid accidentally causing someone to relive a traumatic experience and experience a great degree of unnecessary pain, all you need to do is ask whether they'd be okay with you bringing it up.

Let's take war. Should I be aware that my retelling of a war story, of which was worse than anything PTSD Joe went through, might cause him a relapse in him, while I have no PTSD? Should I be vilified for triggering his PTSD when I did not think my story would have, even if it was a simple allusion to one like "it reminds me of when I was a POW"?

You shouldn't be vilified. But it takes close to no effort to avoid hurting someone in that situation. Being ignorant of the fact that you might cause damage doesn't necessarily free you from taking responsibility for the damage you may have inadvertently caused, especially when it would be so easy to avoid.

I don't think "it reminds of when I was a POW" triggers people in a clinically valid way, but I'm not sure. I've certainly never heard of that. If people are saying it is without being sincere about it, that is irresponsible on their part.

Does the same logic apply to people how are crazy obsessed with something, so people should avoid talking about it? Should I whisper that I saw a celebrity at the mall so superfangirl1 doesn't start shrieking and making a scene in an office setting?

These don't appear to be comparable or analogous situations in any meaningful sense.

Exactly my point. You don't know, so you should have provided a trigger warning, since you don't know what I could be going through, nor do you know what will trigger me. For all you know, every time I was tortured in a POW camp, they played a song, or said a certain phrase, or maybe I could hear my men saying a phrase to try to keep my sanity. Ever see Clockwork Orange? And, to only apply concern to one form, say PTSD and war, and not others, say PTSD and victim of a crime, is just being insensitive. Sure, it is easy to say "what I'm about to say is vivid and war oriented so turn away PTSD inflicted listeners" because it is obvious that war images may be a trigger, but ignoring the vast spectrum of everyone else's trigger issues is illogical, and frankly, impossible. Literally everything needs to have a warning.

Perhaps that was a bad example. Would causing me grief because I have an immense hatred and loathing of a particular individual, for whatever reason, be better? Saying to me you had lunch with them is an insensitive thing to say, isn't it? And, an immense hatred can very much cause physical discomfort, which could be viewed as assault, if it was intentional. After all, there is little difference in the method of the discomfort caused between a threat and a physical reaction like PTSD being triggered.
Sharku
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:34:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Problem is, most people are not triggered by the event itself. People who have gone through trauma typically focus on something else while the trauma is happening as a way of detaching and those are usually what triggers people.

So someone who was abused by a smoker could get panic attacks from the smell of cigarette smoke. That's why PTSD is so debilitating. People don't typically talk about loaded subjects such as rape or war outside the internet. That's not to say there isn't your stereotypical "Vet panics at fireworks", but more often than not it's something seemingly harmless that sets off a panic attack or flashback.

Trigger warnings put people with PTSD in a bit of a stereotype, and make the majority of people go "Oh, well as long as I don't talk about rape, she has no reason to be upset" instead of getting to understand the illness which is complex and multifaceted.

That aside, therapy is to teach people to work through their triggers, not avoid them. You can't expect the world to cater to you because you're struggling, you need to learn how to readapt to the world. You can walk away from a conversation that triggers you, you can click back from a page that triggers you.

I think it has good intentions, but it's just spreading misinformation about PTSD and what it really entails. I hope that makes sense.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:50:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sharku brought up the point that I was going to mention concerning how unpredictable triggers can be. One facet of this that I really hate is when people say that things like rape shouldn't happen on TV shows (Game of Thrones is involved in this debate a lot) because rape victims might be offended/triggered by it. To me, refusing to discuss terrible things like rape is the real disservice, and I've noticed that a lot of the people who push these arguments are more interested in cultivating an unusually delicate state of opprobrium (which they are oddly proud of) than they are in actually helping anyone.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:51:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that if the degree of accommodation performed is relatively minor, then sure. But I don't think that anyone (myself included) would be willing to undergo radical changes in lifestyle to avoid "triggering" someone.

Also, imagine this:
There's a woman who, in her years growing up, was sexually abused by several male relatives and male adult "friends of the family". As a result, she has a fear of men, and seeing a man triggers memories of traumatic events. Well, if she goes into a McDonald's and it's filled with men, they shouldn't be expected to clear out or anything like that. I'm sure that if they knew what she'd been through they'd feel sorry for her, but they haven't done anything to her just for being men and they don't owe her anything just for being men. It'd basically be punishing men in general for the actions of a small percentage of men, and it would not be fair at all.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 1:23:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

No, avoidance makes them more sensitive to such things.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 4:05:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 11:13:47 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/8/2015 10:53:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 10:13:44 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

The intention may not be stupid, but the execution and logic is.

Yes. The intention is to not hurt people unnecessarily. Execution is on a case-by-case basis. As far as I'm aware, there is no standardized or generalized way to provide trigger warnings, so I don't see how we can make general statements about execution.

How am I supposed to know if my audience would have PTSD, or what I say would cause a flashback? For example, rape, child abuse, mugging, war, a nervous breakdown at the office, etc.

That's part of the point. You don't know, so if you want to avoid accidentally causing someone to relive a traumatic experience and experience a great degree of unnecessary pain, all you need to do is ask whether they'd be okay with you bringing it up.

Let's take war. Should I be aware that my retelling of a war story, of which was worse than anything PTSD Joe went through, might cause him a relapse in him, while I have no PTSD? Should I be vilified for triggering his PTSD when I did not think my story would have, even if it was a simple allusion to one like "it reminds me of when I was a POW"?

You shouldn't be vilified. But it takes close to no effort to avoid hurting someone in that situation. Being ignorant of the fact that you might cause damage doesn't necessarily free you from taking responsibility for the damage you may have inadvertently caused, especially when it would be so easy to avoid.

I don't think "it reminds of when I was a POW" triggers people in a clinically valid way, but I'm not sure. I've certainly never heard of that. If people are saying it is without being sincere about it, that is irresponsible on their part.

Does the same logic apply to people how are crazy obsessed with something, so people should avoid talking about it? Should I whisper that I saw a celebrity at the mall so superfangirl1 doesn't start shrieking and making a scene in an office setting?

These don't appear to be comparable or analogous situations in any meaningful sense.

Exactly my point. You don't know, so you should have provided a trigger warning, since you don't know what I could be going through, nor do you know what will trigger me. For all you know, every time I was tortured in a POW camp, they played a song, or said a certain phrase, or maybe I could hear my men saying a phrase to try to keep my sanity. Ever see Clockwork Orange? And, to only apply concern to one form, say PTSD and war, and not others, say PTSD and victim of a crime, is just being insensitive. Sure, it is easy to say "what I'm about to say is vivid and war oriented so turn away PTSD inflicted listeners" because it is obvious that war images may be a trigger, but ignoring the vast spectrum of everyone else's trigger issues is illogical, and frankly, impossible. Literally everything needs to have a warning.

Perhaps that was a bad example. Would causing me grief because I have an immense hatred and loathing of a particular individual, for whatever reason, be better? Saying to me you had lunch with them is an insensitive thing to say, isn't it? And, an immense hatred can very much cause physical discomfort, which could be viewed as assault, if it was intentional. After all, there is little difference in the method of the discomfort caused between a threat and a physical reaction like PTSD being triggered.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you must have a trigger warning for everything. Obviously we cannot predict these things. But for obvious things, like if you're about to talk about rape or child abuse with people who don't know very well, it's a simple courtesy to ask before you inadvertently cause them pain. It's pain caused that isn't very difficult to avoid.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 4:06:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:29:28 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Trigger warnings have actually been proven to make things worse. See my debate on it.

Link? Since you say "proven" I can assume you're not talking about science, so I don't know what you mean. Mathematically proven?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 4:10:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 11:34:11 AM, Sharku wrote:
Problem is, most people are not triggered by the event itself. People who have gone through trauma typically focus on something else while the trauma is happening as a way of detaching and those are usually what triggers people.

So someone who was abused by a smoker could get panic attacks from the smell of cigarette smoke. That's why PTSD is so debilitating. People don't typically talk about loaded subjects such as rape or war outside the internet. That's not to say there isn't your stereotypical "Vet panics at fireworks", but more often than not it's something seemingly harmless that sets off a panic attack or flashback.

Trigger warnings put people with PTSD in a bit of a stereotype, and make the majority of people go "Oh, well as long as I don't talk about rape, she has no reason to be upset" instead of getting to understand the illness which is complex and multifaceted.

That aside, therapy is to teach people to work through their triggers, not avoid them. You can't expect the world to cater to you because you're struggling, you need to learn how to readapt to the world. You can walk away from a conversation that triggers you, you can click back from a page that triggers you.

I think it has good intentions, but it's just spreading misinformation about PTSD and what it really entails. I hope that makes sense.

It's a good point, and I don't think anyone is advocating we don't mention anything that might possibly trigger someone, because that would be impossible. People are just asking we be sensitive about obvious things. There are ways of talking about those things with people who have PTSD, but you might need to give them the opportunity to mentally prepare for it.

I'm not sure you understand what being "triggered" means, because you don't simply "walk away" from a conversation that triggers you. Being triggered puts someone in a state of panic and possibly hysteria. Altered connectivity in the salience network and default mode network, particularly involving the insula, in people with PTSD make it difficult to regulate emotions and process certain social and emotional stimuli.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 4:11:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 1:23:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

No, avoidance makes them more sensitive to such things.

When they need you to decide how much trauma to work through and when, maybe they'll ask you.
Sharku
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 5:21:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 4:10:46 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 11:34:11 AM, Sharku wrote:
Problem is, most people are not triggered by the event itself. People who have gone through trauma typically focus on something else while the trauma is happening as a way of detaching and those are usually what triggers people.

So someone who was abused by a smoker could get panic attacks from the smell of cigarette smoke. That's why PTSD is so debilitating. People don't typically talk about loaded subjects such as rape or war outside the internet. That's not to say there isn't your stereotypical "Vet panics at fireworks", but more often than not it's something seemingly harmless that sets off a panic attack or flashback.

Trigger warnings put people with PTSD in a bit of a stereotype, and make the majority of people go "Oh, well as long as I don't talk about rape, she has no reason to be upset" instead of getting to understand the illness which is complex and multifaceted.

That aside, therapy is to teach people to work through their triggers, not avoid them. You can't expect the world to cater to you because you're struggling, you need to learn how to readapt to the world. You can walk away from a conversation that triggers you, you can click back from a page that triggers you.

I think it has good intentions, but it's just spreading misinformation about PTSD and what it really entails. I hope that makes sense.

It's a good point, and I don't think anyone is advocating we don't mention anything that might possibly trigger someone, because that would be impossible. People are just asking we be sensitive about obvious things. There are ways of talking about those things with people who have PTSD, but you might need to give them the opportunity to mentally prepare for it.

I'm not sure you understand what being "triggered" means, because you don't simply "walk away" from a conversation that triggers you. Being triggered puts someone in a state of panic and possibly hysteria. Altered connectivity in the salience network and default mode network, particularly involving the insula, in people with PTSD make it difficult to regulate emotions and process certain social and emotional stimuli.

I don't personally have PTSD. I do have family that have PTSD, and being on the receiving end of their triggers, I can vouch that it is not fun. In my experience, it's mostly rage, but I have seen it devolve down to tears. While I am not saying it's easy to walk away when you're about to have a melt down, I will say that when I told them I wasn't putting up with their crap, it was amazing how they suddenly stopped blowing up at me and walked away. Really, it wasn't anything I could do, what I did was fine one day but not the next. Which is the funny thing about triggers, one day a trigger could set them off, another day it won't.

Part of getting therapy helps that. Most people take medication to help manage it.

But yes, even though you're having a panic attack (be it fear, rage, or hysteria) you still need to muster some control over your actions. If you can't, you need to get therapy and medication to control it. You're responsible for your own health and actions.

That's not to say that if my family told me "Hey, Sharku, don't do X today or put TRIGGER WARNING on topics about X please" I wouldn't oblige, I'm not a d!ck. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that people have just zero self control during a trigger either.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:08:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Anybody who feels that a legitimately diagnosed case of PTSD is "stupid" and that the sufferer should just "man up and deal with it" clearly and obviously knows precious little about PTSD. And I would also guess that they have never been afflicted by it, or even know anybody who has.

PTSD often carries with it terrifying and life-threatening symptoms. Flashbacks; neurosis; Hyper-Vigilance; psychosis; and of course we cannot forget the corollary issue of Substance abuse/addiction--which can lead to a whole new problem. I have known veterans (I work for the VA) who have committed suicide from self-medicating themselves for some measure of relief from their PTSD symptoms. These are men who fought for their country, so it is safe to say they are not "wusses" or cowards. They have simply been emotionally scarred.

Over the last couple of years when we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation OIF and OEF, we had more former-vets of that war who were then home stateside commit suicide from their PTSD symptoms then there were combat casualties in the Middle East.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:19:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Trigger warnings for what type of mental issues? Substance Abuse? As in a former alcoholic or drug addict who is in recovery?

Or triggers that can spur the onset of a PTSD flashback?

Which type are you referring?

Also, may I inquire as to your personal education and.or experience with the triggers and their ramifications of which you speak?

I will be awaiting your reply. Thank you.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:24:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 9:29:28 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Trigger warnings have actually been proven to make things worse. See my debate on it.

Again..what type of "trigger" warnings are you talking about? Those that deal with Substance Abuse issues? As in, a former alcoholic or drug user who is in recovery? And a "trigger" which can spur a relapse?

Or triggers for a PTSD sufferer? Where a trigger can onset a flashback on the stressor event that was the causal factor for the PTSD?

Which type. And how can they "make it worse?" Please explain. Here. I do not want to go to your debate. And what is your education and experience with mental health methodology dealing with PTSD and S.A.? What prompts you to denigrate trigger warnings as "stupid?"

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:28:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:13:44 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

The intention may not be stupid, but the execution and logic is.
How am I supposed to know if my audience would have PTSD, or what I say would cause a flashback? For example, rape, child abuse, mugging, war, a nervous breakdown at the office, etc.

Let's take war. Should I be aware that my retelling of a war story, of which was worse than anything PTSD Joe went through, might cause him a relapse in him, while I have no PTSD? Should I be vilified for triggering his PTSD when I did not think my story would have, even if it was a simple allusion to one like "it reminds me of when I was a POW"?

Does the same logic apply to people how are crazy obsessed with something, so people should avoid talking about it? Should I whisper that I saw a celebrity at the mall so superfangirl1 doesn't start shrieking and making a scene in an office setting?

Hi! My name is Drew. I am a veteran and I currently am employed with the Northern Arizona Veterans Affairs health Care System. (NAVAHCS). I work in the Mental Health Department.

I was wondering: are you a veteran? A combat vet? May I ask in what theater you served, and when? Who with? Do you have PTSD? Have you ever sought Treatment for it? Are you hooked-up with your local VA? (If you are a vet, of course.)

I am interested in your position on this. Also, I have a Thread on the Personal Forum which I authored specifically so as to assist any Vets or their family who may have issues or questions on PTSD and the VA's offered treatment.

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:33:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 11:34:11 AM, Sharku wrote:
Problem is, most people are not triggered by the event itself. People who have gone through trauma typically focus on something else while the trauma is happening as a way of detaching and those are usually what triggers people.

So someone who was abused by a smoker could get panic attacks from the smell of cigarette smoke. That's why PTSD is so debilitating. People don't typically talk about loaded subjects such as rape or war outside the internet. That's not to say there isn't your stereotypical "Vet panics at fireworks", but more often than not it's something seemingly harmless that sets off a panic attack or flashback.

Trigger warnings put people with PTSD in a bit of a stereotype, and make the majority of people go "Oh, well as long as I don't talk about rape, she has no reason to be upset" instead of getting to understand the illness which is complex and multifaceted.

That aside, therapy is to teach people to work through their triggers, not avoid them. You can't expect the world to cater to you because you're struggling, you need to learn how to readapt to the world. You can walk away from a conversation that triggers you, you can click back from a page that triggers you.

I think it has good intentions, but it's just spreading misinformation about PTSD and what it really entails. I hope that makes sense.

You make some valid points that a person with PTSD can be triggered into a flashback by some aspect that was corrollary to the stressor event itself. (As with your cigarette smoke example.)

But...they are more often triggered by something that reminds them of the stressor event itself. NOT just something that they "thought about to escape the event." For example, an OIF vet who was in a firefight in Tikrit and has PTSD now because his best friend got his head blown off by an AK round is more likely--far more!--te be triggered from a car backfire or fireworks or the smell of burning diesel or gasoline (a common one!) then, say, seeing his Aunt Mable who he thought about during the fire fight.

At least this has been my experience in working with the VA.

thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 7:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:08:10 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Anybody who feels that a legitimately diagnosed case of PTSD is "stupid"

Never said that, nice strawman.

and that the sufferer should just "man up and deal with it"

Never said that, nice strawman.

clearly and obviously knows precious little about PTSD. And I would also guess that they have never been afflicted by it, or even know anybody who has.

PTSD often carries with it terrifying and life-threatening symptoms. Flashbacks; neurosis; Hyper-Vigilance; psychosis; and of course we cannot forget the corollary issue of Substance abuse/addiction--which can lead to a whole new problem. I have known veterans (I work for the VA) who have committed suicide from self-medicating themselves for some measure of relief from their PTSD symptoms. These are men who fought for their country, so it is safe to say they are not "wusses" or cowards. They have simply been emotionally scarred.

Over the last couple of years when we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation OIF and OEF, we had more former-vets of that war who were then home stateside commit suicide from their PTSD symptoms then there were combat casualties in the Middle East.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:02:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:08:10 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Anybody who feels that a legitimately diagnosed case of PTSD is "stupid"

Never said that, nice strawman.

and that the sufferer should just "man up and deal with it"

Never said that, nice strawman.

clearly and obviously knows precious little about PTSD. And I would also guess that they have never been afflicted by it, or even know anybody who has.

PTSD often carries with it terrifying and life-threatening symptoms. Flashbacks; neurosis; Hyper-Vigilance; psychosis; and of course we cannot forget the corollary issue of Substance abuse/addiction--which can lead to a whole new problem. I have known veterans (I work for the VA) who have committed suicide from self-medicating themselves for some measure of relief from their PTSD symptoms. These are men who fought for their country, so it is safe to say they are not "wusses" or cowards. They have simply been emotionally scarred.

Over the last couple of years when we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation OIF and OEF, we had more former-vets of that war who were then home stateside commit suicide from their PTSD symptoms then there were combat casualties in the Middle East.

And your education/experience with PTSD? Are you even a vet? Since your profile says you are a communist I am doubting it.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:08:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:02:05 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:08:10 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Anybody who feels that a legitimately diagnosed case of PTSD is "stupid"

Never said that, nice strawman.

and that the sufferer should just "man up and deal with it"

Never said that, nice strawman.

clearly and obviously knows precious little about PTSD. And I would also guess that they have never been afflicted by it, or even know anybody who has.

PTSD often carries with it terrifying and life-threatening symptoms. Flashbacks; neurosis; Hyper-Vigilance; psychosis; and of course we cannot forget the corollary issue of Substance abuse/addiction--which can lead to a whole new problem. I have known veterans (I work for the VA) who have committed suicide from self-medicating themselves for some measure of relief from their PTSD symptoms. These are men who fought for their country, so it is safe to say they are not "wusses" or cowards. They have simply been emotionally scarred.

Over the last couple of years when we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation OIF and OEF, we had more former-vets of that war who were then home stateside commit suicide from their PTSD symptoms then there were combat casualties in the Middle East.

And your education/experience with PTSD? Are you even a vet? Since your profile says you are a communist I am doubting it.

Do you even know what it means when someone calls themself a communist? I doubt it.

And again, IRRELEVANT. Either deal with they point I made or make a different thread.

Yes, PTSD is a serious thing. People with PTSD should get professional help. Vets should get financial assistance. People in normal settings (classrooms, videos, talking in public) should NOT have to give trigger warnings in order to protect vets (or anyone else).

In the case of vets, if someone is specifically addressing vets, THEN I can understand a possible trigger warning.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:17:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:08:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:02:05 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:08:10 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Anybody who feels that a legitimately diagnosed case of PTSD is "stupid"

Never said that, nice strawman.

and that the sufferer should just "man up and deal with it"

Never said that, nice strawman.

clearly and obviously knows precious little about PTSD. And I would also guess that they have never been afflicted by it, or even know anybody who has.

PTSD often carries with it terrifying and life-threatening symptoms. Flashbacks; neurosis; Hyper-Vigilance; psychosis; and of course we cannot forget the corollary issue of Substance abuse/addiction--which can lead to a whole new problem. I have known veterans (I work for the VA) who have committed suicide from self-medicating themselves for some measure of relief from their PTSD symptoms. These are men who fought for their country, so it is safe to say they are not "wusses" or cowards. They have simply been emotionally scarred.

Over the last couple of years when we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation OIF and OEF, we had more former-vets of that war who were then home stateside commit suicide from their PTSD symptoms then there were combat casualties in the Middle East.

And your education/experience with PTSD? Are you even a vet? Since your profile says you are a communist I am doubting it.

Do you even know what it means when someone calls themself a communist? I doubt it.

And again, IRRELEVANT. Either deal with they point I made or make a different thread.

Yes, PTSD is a serious thing. People with PTSD should get professional help. Vets should get financial assistance. People in normal settings (classrooms, videos, talking in public) should NOT have to give trigger warnings in order to protect vets (or anyone else).

In the case of vets, if someone is specifically addressing vets, THEN I can understand a possible trigger warning.

So we agree on the PTSD triggers.

Good thing. Just wanted to bring you up to speed, as you obviously have zero experience with it or its treatment methodology.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:21:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:53:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 10:13:44 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/8/2015 9:55:21 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Isn't the point to avoid causing flashbacks for people with some form of PTSD? Is that stupid?

The intention may not be stupid, but the execution and logic is.

Yes. The intention is to not hurt people unnecessarily. Execution is on a case-by-case basis. As far as I'm aware, there is no standardized or generalized way to provide trigger warnings, so I don't see how we can make general statements about execution.

How am I supposed to know if my audience would have PTSD, or what I say would cause a flashback? For example, rape, child abuse, mugging, war, a nervous breakdown at the office, etc.

That's part of the point. You don't know, so if you want to avoid accidentally causing someone to relive a traumatic experience and experience a great degree of unnecessary pain, all you need to do is ask whether they'd be okay with you bringing it up.

Let's take war. Should I be aware that my retelling of a war story, of which was worse than anything PTSD Joe went through, might cause him a relapse in him, while I have no PTSD? Should I be vilified for triggering his PTSD when I did not think my story would have, even if it was a simple allusion to one like "it reminds me of when I was a POW"?

You shouldn't be vilified. But it takes close to no effort to avoid hurting someone in that situation. Being ignorant of the fact that you might cause damage doesn't necessarily free you from taking responsibility for the damage you may have inadvertently caused, especially when it would be so easy to avoid.

I don't think "it reminds of when I was a POW" triggers people in a clinically valid way, but I'm not sure. I've certainly never heard of that. If people are saying it is without being sincere about it, that is irresponsible on their part.

Does the same logic apply to people how are crazy obsessed with something, so people should avoid talking about it? Should I whisper that I saw a celebrity at the mall so superfangirl1 doesn't start shrieking and making a scene in an office setting?

These don't appear to be comparable or analogous situations in any meaningful sense.

I agree--his examples and metaphors were way off point.

"Clockwork Orange? Really?

That is NOT PTSD, BTW..it is an example of what we call conditioned response.


It is Pavlovian. Alex was conditioned to "hate" Beethoven because it was played during his conditioning/treatment.

Apples and oranges, amigo.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:22:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:17:09 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:08:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
In the case of vets, if someone is specifically addressing vets, THEN I can understand a possible trigger warning.

So we agree on the PTSD triggers.

IDK if we agree or not considering how vague you have been. If you have PTSD and are watching TV, there should be NO need for a trigger warning. If you are browsing the internet and have PTSD, there should be NO need for a trigger warning. If someone is visiting vets somewhere to give a speech or something, then MAYBE there should be a trigger warning.

Also, define what you mean by "experience with PTSD".

Good thing. Just wanted to bring you up to speed, as you obviously have zero experience with it or its treatment methodology.

Nice ad hom. May I have another?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:17:09 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:08:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:02:05 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:08:10 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:25:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your views on trigger warnings?

I think they are stupid (especially when it gets to the point that people can get in trouble for not giving trigger warnings and then "triggering" someone).

Trigger warnings is a way of telling society to change to help a small group of people. What needs to happen is for those that get "triggered" need to learn to cope.

Anybody who feels that a legitimately diagnosed case of PTSD is "stupid"

Never said that, nice strawman.

and that the sufferer should just "man up and deal with it"

Never said that, nice strawman.

clearly and obviously knows precious little about PTSD. And I would also guess that they have never been afflicted by it, or even know anybody who has.

PTSD often carries with it terrifying and life-threatening symptoms. Flashbacks; neurosis; Hyper-Vigilance; psychosis; and of course we cannot forget the corollary issue of Substance abuse/addiction--which can lead to a whole new problem. I have known veterans (I work for the VA) who have committed suicide from self-medicating themselves for some measure of relief from their PTSD symptoms. These are men who fought for their country, so it is safe to say they are not "wusses" or cowards. They have simply been emotionally scarred.

Over the last couple of years when we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation OIF and OEF, we had more former-vets of that war who were then home stateside commit suicide from their PTSD symptoms then there were combat casualties in the Middle East.

And your education/experience with PTSD? Are you even a vet? Since your profile says you are a communist I am doubting it.

Do you even know what it means when someone calls themself a communist? I doubt it.

And again, IRRELEVANT. Either deal with they point I made or make a different thread.

Yes, PTSD is a serious thing. People with PTSD should get professional help. Vets should get financial assistance. People in normal settings (classrooms, videos, talking in public) should NOT have to give trigger warnings in order to protect vets (or anyone else).

In the case of vets, if someone is specifically addressing vets, THEN I can understand a possible trigger warning.

So we agree on the PTSD triggers.

Good thing. Just wanted to bring you up to speed, as you obviously have zero experience with it or its treatment methodology.

BTW...your examples and metaphors on PTSD were way off point.

"Clockwork Orange? Really? LOL.

That is NOT PTSD, BTW..it is an example of what we call conditioned response.

It is Pavlovian. Alex was conditioned to "hate" Beethoven because it was played during his conditioning/treatment.

Apples and oranges, amigo.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:26:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:22:20 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:17:09 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:08:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
In the case of vets, if someone is specifically addressing vets, THEN I can understand a possible trigger warning.

So we agree on the PTSD triggers.

IDK if we agree or not considering how vague you have been. If you have PTSD and are watching TV, there should be NO need for a trigger warning. If you are browsing the internet and have PTSD, there should be NO need for a trigger warning. If someone is visiting vets somewhere to give a speech or something, then MAYBE there should be a trigger warning.

Also, define what you mean by "experience with PTSD".

Good thing. Just wanted to bring you up to speed, as you obviously have zero experience with it or its treatment methodology.

Nice ad hom. May I have another?

Yep..See my next post on your Clockwork woo.

Look, when you make strong and offending opinions to somebody who works in the field---a field you have thus far shown to know precious little about--you can expect to get attacked once in awhile.

That whole. Play with bull, get horns deal.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Sharku
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:51:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:33:45 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/8/2015 11:34:11 AM, Sharku wrote:
Problem is, most people are not triggered by the event itself. People who have gone through trauma typically focus on something else while the trauma is happening as a way of detaching and those are usually what triggers people.

So someone who was abused by a smoker could get panic attacks from the smell of cigarette smoke. That's why PTSD is so debilitating. People don't typically talk about loaded subjects such as rape or war outside the internet. That's not to say there isn't your stereotypical "Vet panics at fireworks", but more often than not it's something seemingly harmless that sets off a panic attack or flashback.

Trigger warnings put people with PTSD in a bit of a stereotype, and make the majority of people go "Oh, well as long as I don't talk about rape, she has no reason to be upset" instead of getting to understand the illness which is complex and multifaceted.

That aside, therapy is to teach people to work through their triggers, not avoid them. You can't expect the world to cater to you because you're struggling, you need to learn how to readapt to the world. You can walk away from a conversation that triggers you, you can click back from a page that triggers you.

I think it has good intentions, but it's just spreading misinformation about PTSD and what it really entails. I hope that makes sense.

You make some valid points that a person with PTSD can be triggered into a flashback by some aspect that was corrollary to the stressor event itself. (As with your cigarette smoke example.)

But...they are more often triggered by something that reminds them of the stressor event itself. NOT just something that they "thought about to escape the event." For example, an OIF vet who was in a firefight in Tikrit and has PTSD now because his best friend got his head blown off by an AK round is more likely--far more!--te be triggered from a car backfire or fireworks or the smell of burning diesel or gasoline (a common one!) then, say, seeing his Aunt Mable who he thought about during the fire fight.

At least this has been my experience in working with the VA.

thanks.

Yes, that makes sense. The people I know have what's called Complex PTSD, which means they were exposed to trauma over a long period of time (severe child abuse).

It also means that it wasn't a quick one off where everything is chaotic and the victim doesn't have time to register what's really going on. For a vet it would make sense to register only the noise and smell because he had to get the hell out of there and focus on surviving. For someone who is exposed to something over a prolonged period of time, it makes sense that they are able to distract themselves during the trauma and focus on specific objects in the room. (EG: a rape victim can be triggered by certain cologne or toy trains that were in the room).

The triggers might be different between the two, or maybe it's the same. Where they're triggered during the day, handle it fine (outwardly) because they switch to survival mode, and then explode at home where it's "safe".

In any case, I can only tell what I know from books and people that talk about it.