Wednesday, May 30th, 2012
92

When "Trigger Warning" Lost All Its Meaning

Once upon a time, "trigger warning" was an Internet shorthand for "Hey, look out, in what follows on this website, we are going to talk about rape or child sexual abuse or something really intense, and if you're not in the right emotional place for that, maybe go away and come back." This was a useful kind of thing! If sometimes applied a little broadly, but you know: fair warning is fair warning.

A couple of years ago now, a big dust-up went down. Oh, those were good times: "The debate over the feminist blog staple began with sex writer Susannah Breslin, who thinks trigger warnings are condescending at best, and a disingenuous ploy to keep feminist blogs relevant at worst. The topic then migrated to Feministing, which employs trigger warnings for the simple reason that it 'care[s] about rape victims.' Feministing declared Breslin a 'certifiable asshole,' at which point the debate moved on to Jezebel, which doesn't employ trigger warnings, also cares about rape victims, and thinks Breslin is an asshole, too." Hoo boy! (The comments on that post are actually really great and thoughtful.)

And now here we are in 2012, where this useful thing has spread a litttttle far afield.

The other day a woman asked a question of a group of Internet strangers (good idea or no? Signs point to no!) about how she was disappointed about her marriage proposal which wasn't all romantic enough for her, and some people were like "Girl, get over it" basically, and then some other people thought these Internet strangers were too harsh with her, "thus effectively shaming" her. And they also introduced the phrase "triggering." This is a sign of how far afield "trigger warnings" have gone: it's insulting, infantilizing and comes from some part of the Internet that only exists in parts of California, I'm pretty sure.

Here's the pushback to that point of view:

Triggers are a pretty specific psychological phenomenon. They are not the same as being reminded of things one does not like. When the term becomes too general it stifles regular conversation because the phrase carries with it, in common usage, the idea that we should respect the severe psychological responses to otherwise ordinary exchanges, and should modify our behavior accordingly. In the case of a severe response, this seems justified. In lesser cases it seems like a word used to make people stop talking about something you don't want them to talk about.

And:

I'm kinda concerned that the phrasing of "triggered," a relatively newly-recognized phenomenon, is jumping past its intended usage. "Triggered" is becoming the new "codependent," in that it's a word that's getting overused and used to mean something other than the original meaning, and therefore starts to mean nothing.

There is literally no way that we, as people on the Internet, can extend our empathy-watch to random, thoroughly general, non-abuse-related issues. I think a lot of us can and should keep "don't be an asshole!" in mind maybe? But the Internet at large is not a safe space for different people like you and me (though the Internet in specific can be a safe space, which is great!). The Internet is in fact a big weird place—not to mansplain, because you've probably noticed that yourself. Also it's not a particularly great place to be this week if you don't want to see people who've had their faces half eaten-off this week, for one thing!

In better news, tech has come a decent way in letting people take care of themselves online, instead of being cared for by random people. For instance: Tumblr Savior is an extension that lets people block any particular tags; Tumblr SafeDash is an extension that lets people choose what photos they want to view. As for the non-Tumblr Internet, you're pretty much on your own.



A small update: This isn't meant to further escalate what's already a pretty intense argument over on Metafilter. It's just an interesting moment on the Internet, and usage of language. Please don't feel the need to go join any pile-ons, or use this for such.

92 Comments / Post A Comment

jolie (#16)

Serious Q: I'm a litle confused as to why this is specific to women? Did the term originate on women's blogs? (Not a big reader of women's blogs until The HP came along so this is probs my own ignorance of Lady Outrage rearing its head.) But I ask because it wasnt long ago that we were all freaking out about that story we don't talk about (somethig something baby car death AHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOO) and it was the menfolk leading the crying conga line, so.

Tulletilsynet (#333)

@jolie
The internet is a machine that generates disgusting remarks and tells people what they aren't allowed to say.

messica (#234,148)

@jolie It's a pre-internet thing I think. At least it originates from the feminist movement and feminist blogs made it sort of blow up, but I don't know when it came about so maybe we had the internet. But it started as a warning for rape and abuse survivors that it was going to be specifically mentioned/described in writing, and then other things got trigger warnings like weight and calories talk for people with EDs (which I actually thought was a good idea) and then gross photos (okay?) and then reblogs posts by men's rights activists and tea partiers (what?) and has now evolved to something you throw at someone when they disagree with you in the social justice tumblr-sphere.

umlauts (#234,147)

@jolie I wouldn't say it's woman-specific, as such, but this did originate in women's sites, espcially feminist spaces with a lot of discussion about rape and abuse.

I think that as it has profliferated and become increasingly ridiculous, it has become more a less gendered thing, especially in the nonsense-factory that is tumblr. But it is just more likely that women will know what trigger warning means/care about it/misuse it terribly.

saythatscool (#101)

@umlauts I always love that feminists have "spaces" instead of a fucking website. Like they're delicate flora that Alex Balk is going to trample over and fuck up with a post about bears. As opposed to my drunk sister waking up at noon, scratching her ass and eating a bone-in porkchop and mustard sandwich on my couch when she comes to visit.

atipofthehat (#797)

@saythatscool

FIRE WALK WITH ME

Art Yucko (#1,321)

@atipofthehat

IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN

IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN

jolie (#16)

Got it – thanks for the Internet history lesson gang!!

IBentMyWookie (#133)

@jolie The terms "gang" is very sensitive for some of us! Mostly because I once did an image search for "gangrene" but still, you should think before you type.

atipofthehat (#797)

@IBentMyWookie

I still haven't gotten over what Wyclef Jean did to your decorative guest soaps.

IBentMyWookie (#133)

@atipofthehat May the Lord bless and keep you.

Speaking of taking care of ourselves online, surely by now someone's created a service that strips all the racist comments out from city newspapers' websites (i.e. all the comments). If not, I will contribute mightily to that Kickstarter campaign.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

@The Dependent Clause There isn't enough energy in the world to power the number of servers necessary to scrub all of the racist comments from newspaper comment sections.

raincoaster (#628)

@The Dependent Clause Yes, this exists. Newspapers don't want to use it, of course, because it costs money to buy, costs money to run, and screaming racism is always good for hits as long as it's in the comments section.

riotnrrd (#840)

@The Dependent Clause https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/commentblocker/ does a decent job. Also, using something like Ghostery (which is good practice anyway), you can block centralized commenting services like Disqus.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

@riotnrrd Ok, so I was exaggerating a little.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@The Dependent Clause If I recall, here's also a plugin that eliminates only comments which meet certain criteria (such as X number of !!!!s or misspelled words).

@raincoaster The only plugin effective enough for me to never have to read things that upset me is the plugin you can yank out of the wall and say byebye to the Interwhootsis for good.

bluebears (#5,902)

I just wish for some sort of tool that would alert me when I'm about to click over to a site with a story about animal cruelty. Day ruiner. Someday…

C_Webb (#855)

@bluebears When the Times features the ad to stop bear-baiting on their homepage, I stop reading for a week. (Yes, I support the ASPCA, who runs the ad. I'M DOING MY PART PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME LOOK AT SAD BEAR!)

laurel (#4,035)

@bluebears I've had rather more productive work days waiting for some sad bear tragedy to fall below the fold on the Awl.

Seriously, though, I'd pay actual money for something like that.

I was watching the new episode of Bourdain's No Reservations the other night and he described scalding a hog until it was "as smooth and hairless as a pole dancer's taint." Did that require a trigger?

raincoaster (#628)

Wait…isn't EVERY post on Jezebel labeled "TRIGGER WARNING" by default?

BadUncle (#153)

@raincoaster That's not funny!

Tulletilsynet (#333)

But on what d a y did this debate migrate from that one blog to that other blog? "A couple of years ago", really?

batgirl31 (#214,519)

I remember a post on Jezebel that discussed the specifics of anal sex. In the comment section, someone complained that the picture accompanying the article was triggering. The picture in question? A starfish. In what ways is a starfish triggering? I mean, I'm sorry if you were sexually harassed by a starfish as a young child, but I'm pretty sure this is not a common occurrence that would warrant a trigger warning of an image of a mostly asexual sea creature.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@batgirl31 Sometimes, when a right-winger has a rage dream about terrible PC scolds ruining everything, those dreams come to life and leave comments on Jezebel.

CaptBackslap (#10,313)

@batgirl31 Anyone who was ever forced to listen to Limp Bizkit's absolutely terrible album "Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water" would be pretty traumatized by such a vivid reminder.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

@batgirl31 The same thing has happened with throwaway pictures on Hairpin posts, too. There was one with a spider, another one with a doll, and another one with, like, a bird. Some Jez-refugee popped up in the comments immediately to shame the writer for being insensitive to their special needs because one time they were molested by a sparrow when they were 6 and OMG how could the writer be so callous as to post a picture of a sparrow…or something like that.

I pointed out the absurdity of this, and was promptly called an anti-woman male-gazing slutshamer.

saythatscool (#101)

@petejayhawk This is why Edith has requested that I become her Hortense.

I've got a very good feeling about this, Peter.

melis (#1,854)

@petejayhawk One was of moldy bread! Moldy bread!

saythatscool (#101)

@melis Oh shit, now I remember. Thank you for that, Mel.

melis (#1,854)

@saythatscool I can't be remembering this correctly, but I think she hinted darkly that she had a vague illness that made looking at moldy things physically painful for her? That cannot be right. I have so many questions about that!!!

batgirl31 (#214,519)

@melis This cannot be a thing. Is it a thing? Really? If that's the case, then looking at dirty, snotty tissues causes me immense pain. No more pictures of dirty, snotty things! A boycott!

melis (#1,854)

@saythatscool I'm afraid to look

atipofthehat (#797)

@saythatscool

Did there used to be a picture of moldy bread there? Or does someone really not like Rihanna?

stuffisthings (#1,352)

[Spoiler alert]

cherrispryte (#444)

@saythatscool Ugh. I hate the internet a little bit more after having read all that, but I'm quite thankful I had nothing to do with it.

saythatscool (#101)

@atipofthehat It used to be a pic of moldy bread but then Edith switched it out just to get everyone to shut the fuck up about it. I remember going to type something truly terrible on that thread. Something that would have made Redd Foxx throw up, and then I read Pete telling her to go fuck herself and Mel came in with some hilarious one-liners, so I just dropped it all.

atipofthehat (#797)

@saythatscool

Thanks!

It might be fun, though, to go through life (or through a week) assuming that people will just change things that bother you, once your preferences are known. To be successful in the long run, you would probably have to be some combination of physically attractive, wealthy, and well-armed.

PS
I didn't know you worked blue.

lol cancer

saythatscool (#101)

@Bus Driver Stu Benedict Don't you start.

IBentMyWookie (#133)

@Bus Driver Stu Benedict Oh, man. I'm going to claim cancer treatment if Balk posts about another goddamned bear.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

[I didn't think that all the way through]

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

Wow, I love that even AFTER the "Also, I have radiation sickness so please ask me about that" callout, she went and posted three paragraphs about her radiation sickness unprompted.

Seiryuu (#262,479)

@petejayhawk Molested by a sparrow? HOW?

BadUncle (#153)

I think a lot of us can and should keep "don't be an asshole!" in mind maybe?

As someone who routinely says the worst possible thing at the wrong time by mistake, I totally endorse this plan. It's the tits!

MichelleDean (#7,041)

The only thing I find triggering is Facebook commenters. Oh, and Thought Catalog.

The following link just appeared in the "Around the Web" box between the post and the comments:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/10-creatures-that-deliver-the-most-painful-stings-and-bites/watch-out

Nothing like a photo gallery of creepy crawlies to make your day. Oh, and thanks for reminding me of that centipede that bit me on the hand while I was asleep in a B&B in Jamaica.

I never heard of this and now I have a headache. Is that what it's all about?

@My Number Is My Address Some people think everyone else should look after them. I think.

Rollo (#3,202)

I need an internet filter that blocks everything but Wodehouse. NOT NOW, INFANT, CAN'T YOU SEE I'M ON THE WODEHOUSE MACHINE

melis (#1,854)

"Not the black cummerbund, Jeeves," I said airily. "The red one. The jolly old red one, tonight, I think."

"Sir, I'm afraid I would find that triggering."

"Jeeves?"

He lifted the beloved red c. out of the suitcase and sure enough, clear as dammit, TRIGGER WARNING was scrawled across the front in black ink.

"Though I endeavor to give satisfaction in all my duties as valet," he continued calmly (damn him!), "you must understand I cannot possibly assist you in matters of dress that might be triggering to me."

I sagged like an empty soda-syphon. "Ah. Right-ho, then."

"The black one will suit admirably, sir."

"Right-ho," I said, but my heart wasn't in it.

atipofthehat (#797)

@melis

"For your information, Catsmeat, Melis takes a size 14 hat, eats tons of fish and moves in mysterious ways her wonders to perform."

cherrispryte (#444)

While I realize that mocking special snowflakes is what a lot of us (myself included!) probably do best, I'd like to reiterate one of Choire's points – trigger warnings, in their initial form, were a really good idea. People already know the internet's a horrible place, but I think its understandable when they try to carve out a corner of it for themselves that is a reasonable approximation of safe. And there are a lot of people out there who have been through various shit – rape and abuse survivors, eating disorders – who, yes , if they get halfway through a story and something in it inspires PTSD-esque flashbacks, that's going to fuck up their day on a major level. Or they're not going to be able to eat all day because of what they've just read.

There's a difference between "I'm going to spend the rest of the day curled up in a ball sobbing, reliving an incredibly traumatizing experience in my mind" and "ewww I don't like spiders."

Mock the hell out of the people who don't like spiders and who are overusing "trigger warning," but please don't forget that there is a legitimate purpose for the warnings.

Like, look. No one in their right mind is going to put trigger warnings on, say, Fark or College Humor or any website that's a known bastion of assholery. People who need trigger warnings already know to stay away from such places. But for websites that work hard at being supportive, I think it's totally fair to post a warning that you might upset some of your valued audience.

hockeymom (#143)

@cherrispryte This is marginally related (that is to say, not at all)….but I feel like Gawker is going in an opposite direction. As in, trying to put stuff on their front page that is intentionally triggering. Is triggering even a word?
I don't partake in the lady-site, Jezebel, because I'm too old and find myself screaming at the computer "just get the fuck over yourself" too often. And Gawker is annoying. More than annoying with the offensive stuff. Purposefully awful, maybe?
Anyway, I pulled the trigger on them and executed the site from my "popular" tab.
I suppose that's not the correct use of "trigger" but it worked for me.

cherrispryte (#444)

@hockeymom I pretty much swore off Gawker & Co when they did the redesign that made it impossible to navigate or read comments, but yeah, that's what I've heard. The quality over there is just getting sad.
Triggering is definitely a word.

SuperMargie (#1,263)

@cherrispryte @hockeymom I just erased Gawker fom my tabs today too! Maybe that is what they want. It is starting to seem like some grand social experiment.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

There's a difference between "I'm going to spend the rest of the day curled up in a ball sobbing, reliving an incredibly traumatizing experience in my mind" and "ewww I don't like spiders."

Well said.

Ham Snadwich (#11,842)

I wonder what Tea Partiers are posting trigger warnings about:

TRIGGER WARNING: Photos of middle-class black professionals inside

TRIGGER WARNING: Story implies Obama born in the United States; legally able to be president

TRIGGER WARNING: Story contains descriptions of neutral or positive interaction with government official inside

TRIGGER WARNING: My finger is on an actual trigger.

Danzig! (#5,318)

I would posit that the devolution of trigger warnings on the internet is mainly a function of the fundamental inability of the average person to relate to abuse-damaged folk.

It's sort of a weird analogy but I think it sort of similar to the food stamps thing that was just on the Billfold – you see this thing that people are doing out of necessity (Food stamps! Trigger warnings!) and it's so far outside the realm of how you live / what you consider acceptable for yourself that it becomes not just ridiculous but contemptuous. Add that to a free-floating antipathy for academy-bound gender studies-speak and the general judge-y enmity that seems to perpetually exist between ladyblogs and their commentariats and you get debacles like this.

cherrispryte (#444)

@Danzig! YES.

DMcK (#5,027)

@Danzig! The discussion of that old Hairpin thread above got me thinking, so I would add that this extends to those members of the commentariat who trivialize the initial function of trigger warnings (perhaps out of a misguided attempt to identify with abuse victims?) to apply them to their own personal tics, as well as those commenters who defend them (perhaps out of the same misguided etc?). For example, I'm fairly acutely acrophobic, and images or videos of, say, rock climbing or high steel construction are basically off limits, but I'm not going to complain to the editors or sympathy-troll the comments about 'em.

kenneth berserk (#234,159)

@Danzig! You're so right! It's interesting how that contempt is also expressed as a more authentically progressive stance. The people (women, mostly) who think that graphic descriptions of rape, assault, whatever should have a simple disclaimer are preventing us from engaging in the "real" struggle. Sheesh, we can multitask y'all.

Danzig! (#5,318)

@DMcK I don't think it has anything to do with attempting to "identify" with abuse victims. It's an explicit dismissal of them. It's fairly apparent that the Hairpin (or its commenting culture at least) positions itself against Cosmo-esque "lifestyle" publications but also, more importantly, against the campus activist bent of the wider feminist blogosphere. Rejection of trigger warnings are part and parcel of that opposition. They're not a "real life" thing, they're the domain of crazy bitches and their made up online hidey-holes. Whether that's explicitly stated or insinuated via skepticism of their more dubious and actually trivial uses is incidental. How is placing a trigger warning over pictures of spiders any different from placing a trigger warning over a description of rape? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to call touchy arachnophobes pussies, there's no reason you shouldn't do the same to victims of sexual violence.

But no, these are clearly not comment sections where you should expect people to be considerate of whatever your deal is. I've seen rape jokes be rapturously received in the comments in the Hairpin. If you're sensitive to such things you just avoid any and all articles related to them. It's not that you ought to be able to take the shit, any more than minorities ought to be able to take slurs or women ought to be able to take harassment. It's that confronting folks on these things, you might as well try defending Obama on Redstate. You're challenging the first principles of the forum and you're pissing in the wind. It's not worth your time.

Danzig! (#5,318)

@Danzig! Mind you, I say this as a sex abuse victim and someone who could feel their verve being sucked out of them as they typed all this up, I just harbor no illusions about what I can expect out of the places I go. You're going to step in a bear trap now and again. That's what makes "safe spaces" necessary. But it's important that you're able to say "fuck those people" when they ruin your day, and give up any need to shame them for their motherfuckery. It's the only way you can continually function.

pissy elliott (#397)

@Danzig! How is placing a trigger warning over pictures of spiders any different from placing a trigger warning over a description of rape?

Danzig! (#5,318)

@pissy elliott There's an obvious difference, but it's worth asking why we only ever talk about inappropriate trigger warnings whenever we talk about trigger warnings at all. Why even bother needling touchy agorophobes, if not to suggest an inherent ridiculousness or weakness that comes with requiring disclaimers in the first place? Disclaimers for pictures of rotting food are to trigger warnings as "welfare queens" are to social programs. What kind of person even needs trigger warnings? Silly and fragile people, apparently.

DMcK (#5,027)

@Danzig! "Disclaimers for pictures of rotting food are to trigger warnings as "welfare queens" are to social programs."

Well, yes, that was my entire point, and perhaps I phrased it poorly. Let me put it this way: were I to complain about an historic image of construction workers at the pinnacle of the Empire State Building (something I have trouble looking at) I would fall into the "Welfare Queen" category, deserving of the typical jibing that gets dished out in these forums, for the simple reason that it devalues both the experiences of genuine survivors such as yourself, and the stated original purpose of trigger warnings.

However, Melis' tasteless joke aside (yep, I remember too), I disagree that that implies a general contempt around here for those who genuinely benefit from appropriately-applied TW's.

cherrispryte (#444)

@Danzig! Its interesting. I tried, for a long time, to keep the Hairpin commenting sections a relatively "safe space" as I saw fit – mainly by bitching people out, because I was a self-appointed despot. And while I think I did okay there for awhile, the site got too big and too popular and, well, different. Which is a discussion for a different post, but my point here is, indeed, taking the step from trying to shame people to saying "fuck these people" is really good and important and I'm happy I'm there now.

DMcK (#5,027)

Also, Choire up above:

"(The comments on that post are actually really great and thoughtful.)"

Quite so.

Danzig! (#5,318)

@DMcK That's a fair conclusion to come to, and I think it's a valid point. It might be fundamental attribution error on my part, but I'm just kind of jaded after so many years.

For what it's worth I don't really see a problem in accommodating people on things like severe phobias, whatever they might be, or traumas. It's inelegant to be sure (there's something to be said for the block of disclaimers as eyesore) but there's nothing really wrong with it per se. I think it's sort of insane that it would be thought of as "coddling" folks. It's a really, really small thing. It's no great crime for it to slip your mind, either.

(I wasn't gonna name names on the joke thing, but yeah there it is. Nothing really to say about it except that the bloom came off the Hairpin's rose for me after that point.)

@cherrispryte Yeah, you can't have too great of a stake in these things. Still, it's good to excoriate someone every now and again, if not just for the sake of someone else.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

So, we can all agree that trigger warnings are a thing based on a real psychological phenomenon and that they have their uses, but we probably shouldn't be applying them to (for example) moldy bread.

Glad it only took 75 comments to come the same conclusion Choire did in the original post.

cherrispryte (#444)

@stuffisthings Hey, I just wanted to make sure we came back around to it!

DMcK (#5,027)

@stuffisthings I think the exchange rate with Hairpin comments is like 1:7, so we should consider ourselves lucky.

melis (#1,854)

@Danzig! If nothing else, I'm glad that you brought it up because it gives me the chance to give you a long-overdue apology. I hadn't seem the aftermath of that thread until quite a bit later, when someone forwarded it along to me, and this seems like the most relevant place to thank you for saying that. That was a well-deserved fuck-you, and you were right to say it. It was a stupid, careless, thoughtless joke and I shouldn't have made it. Not just because it caused you pain but because it was insensitive and ignored the reality of trauma in favor of a cheap laugh.

At any rate, I want you to know I took those comments to heart and realized what an unbelievably callous and ignorant thing I said. I'm sorry that I said it, I'm sorry that I caused you and who knows how many other people to feel like their pain was trivial and unimportant and something to joke about it. I was a jerk, and I'm sorry.

Danzig! (#5,318)

@melis Apology accepted. Whatever the circumstances I shouldn't have resorted to the hot-headed language I did, so I'm sorry as well.

melis (#1,854)

@Danzig! That's awfully kind of you to say, but I think a knock upside the head was more productive than a gentle nudge would have been. I really appreciate what you did and I think you were well within your rights to phrase things strongly. Anything that helps reduce jerkiness in the world is Truly Good.

pissy elliott (#397)

I unexpectedly find myself siding with the contemptuous on this one!

melis (#1,854)

@pissy elliott I think there's certainly room to be someone who generally attempts to be non-hateful and considerate without employing the phrase "trigger warning." You can find the phrase generally toothless/more stylized than helpful without being a total jerk! Probably.

saythatscool (#101)

I just wish Edith would give a Trigger warning on the Hairpin every time some asshole commenter makes a Sarah Jessica Parker/horse pun.

pissy elliott (#397)

@melis I have Choire-esque opinions about the issue, so I actually agree with you in a way — sorry if it seems otherwise. I have general thoughts about the way language gets policed in the name of varying kinds of "niceness," "sensitivity," and "compassion." At the risk of getting too academic/Internet Safe Spacey, I wonder if our definition of compassion suffers by demanding that all conersational norms center around a very particular kind of non-confrontationalness. And now I leave the Internet! REALLY!

saythatscool (#101)

@pissy elliott People should read this and read this again. Understand it is truth and then move on.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

That said, I will gladly die on the barricades to rid the world of the phrase "spoiler alert."

cherrispryte (#444)

@stuffisthings Please stop flaunting your media-consumption privilege, I find it very triggering.
(Am I doing this right?)

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@cherrispryte For full points you must guess my age, height, weight, race, gender, sexual preference(s), income, and level/type of education, then indicate how these attributes have informed your outrage.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

JESUS STUFFIS CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE

smittydeen (#234,184)

Nice Blog

jonhydan (#234,228)

I LIKE THIS POST

Post a Comment