I'm here via metafandom, and I see that you (understandably) filter anonymous comments, so no worries if you don't want to let this comment go through. But I wanted to thank you for posting this.
Silence absolutely doesn't mean consent, and finally seeing someone say this brings tears to my eyes. I'm someone with a trigger, but I also have had serious reservations about implementing trigger warnings. In fact, I can think of some situations where the existence of warnings might cause me more harm than their absence. But I feel like in order to express an opinion on the subject and not get vilified, I have to disclose my medical and psychological history to the world at large, and I find that a gross violation of privacy. (This is especially so given that the nature of my trigger is somewhat stigmatizing and often misunderstood by well-meaning people who want to help but can make things worse for me by intervening.) So I'm left voiceless, stripped of my ability to participate in shaping the norms of the community (I thought) I was a part of, because of this precedent that seems to have been set during the Warnings Debate 1.0 last year that requires personal and detailed confession of the precise nature of one's trigger-related absence of privilege. And wow, has that been demoralizing.
In the face of that, seeing the voices of compromise speak out, even if they don't necessarily make the same points I would make, has been a great comfort.
I only filter specifically for spam. Thank you for commenting. I'm glad I saw this before I went to bed.
You can feel free to make your points here under anonymous if you'd feel comfortable doing that. I pretty much speak for no one but myself, so multiple points of view are encouraged, if for no other reason than knowing what they are and where they come from makes a better middle ground possible.
In any case, I'm very glad you spoke here. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
Same anon as above (and after this, I'll probably bow out). Thanks for approving my post! I don't know why, after a year of sitting on my hands silently feeling more and more alienated, I happened to snap when I saw your post - maybe because you were so open-minded? But now that I've started, it's such a relief being able to vent, I'm going to just go ahead. (And thanks for your welcoming reaction.)
My trigger - and here I go confessing! - is suicide. I suffer from (now well-managed) semi-chronic (but these days non-acute) suicidal ideation. Not because of any trauma, but simply because of brain chemistry/inborn inclination. Depictions of suicide in fiction can be triggering for me. But warnings (or even worse, AO3-style tags) can make things even worse! This is because when I was in the throes of a suicidal episode, I often felt compelled to seek out depictions of suicide, even though it dangerously exacerbated my negative mental state. There were times when I did Google searches for suicide in fiction because I wanted to read nothing but suicide after suicide after suicide! Warnings and tags, which weren't common at the time, would have made it oh-so-convenient to find exactly the thing that was the most dangerous for me.
The existence of a situation like mine, where warnings can both prevent and cause harm in somewhat complex ways, may not change anyone's opinion. Maybe rightfully so. Maybe my case is too rare. (After all, during the warnings debate last year, I recall at least one vehement warnings proponent claiming that suicide wasn't a "common enough" trigger, so it could safely be excluded.) Maybe there's a valid distinction to be made between "self-harm" type triggers like mine and triggers relating to sexual assault/PTSD/etc. Maybe I'm not very representative even of the suicidally inclined, and so my case can be considered but then set aside. But I am a genuine data point (to use a phrase from another person's post), and the least I should be able to expect is to be acknowledged in the course of the debate, even if it is ultimately determined that my particular data point doesn't carry a lot of weight in the larger scheme of things.
And yet, thanks to the way this debate has been framed, I can't contribute this data point without the kind of personal disclosure I mentioned above. If anyone tried to bring it up as a hypothetical, they'd be attacked for derailing or filling in the dreaded "slippery slope" bingo square.
My feeling is: I believe that the slippery slope analysis is valuable, not derailing. It's by thinking things through in advance, by testing hypothetical limits and doing thought-experiments, that we are able to reach consensus about what the community norm should be. Indeed, even when I am in favor of a change in norms, I want people to toss up all the devil's advocate arguments against it that they can think of, and I want them to raise as many concerns as possible, because that process will lead to a better-informed position on my part.
And I don't especially care if the person doing the thought-experiments has a trigger or not, so long as their reasoning is thoughtful and constructive. I don't care if the issue they raise is hypothetical or personally-experienced (and, frankly, sometimes the "hypothetical" will be anything but). I'm not even sure that I oppose warnings, necessarily, but I'd like the topic to be thoroughly debated and the implications thought through, and I hate seeing that the people who have tried to do so are being attacked. I'm glad you have given them their deserved props.
So very much of this. Yes. Thank you. Is it wrong to want to bring up the fact that an argument is not perfect or misses out some data point, for the sake of pushing through a solution for some people faster? I know the perfect can be the enemy of the good if you spend too much time stalling over it, and I'm not saying don't implement the solution anyway, but... at least consider the available data points, even if you ultimately don't end up giving them weight.
I so often feel like this. And sympathise with so much of your post, in general. Have an internet-unicorn.
Silence absolutely doesn't mean consent, and finally seeing someone say this brings tears to my eyes. I'm someone with a trigger, but I also have had serious reservations about implementing trigger warnings. In fact, I can think of some situations where the existence of warnings might cause me more harm than their absence. But I feel like in order to express an opinion on the subject and not get vilified, I have to disclose my medical and psychological history to the world at large, and I find that a gross violation of privacy. (This is especially so given that the nature of my trigger is somewhat stigmatizing and often misunderstood by well-meaning people who want to help but can make things worse for me by intervening.) So I'm left voiceless, stripped of my ability to participate in shaping the norms of the community (I thought) I was a part of, because of this precedent that seems to have been set during the Warnings Debate 1.0 last year that requires personal and detailed confession of the precise nature of one's trigger-related absence of privilege. And wow, has that been demoralizing.
In the face of that, seeing the voices of compromise speak out, even if they don't necessarily make the same points I would make, has been a great comfort.
Again, thank you for this.
Reply
You can feel free to make your points here under anonymous if you'd feel comfortable doing that. I pretty much speak for no one but myself, so multiple points of view are encouraged, if for no other reason than knowing what they are and where they come from makes a better middle ground possible.
In any case, I'm very glad you spoke here. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
Reply
My trigger - and here I go confessing! - is suicide. I suffer from (now well-managed) semi-chronic (but these days non-acute) suicidal ideation. Not because of any trauma, but simply because of brain chemistry/inborn inclination. Depictions of suicide in fiction can be triggering for me. But warnings (or even worse, AO3-style tags) can make things even worse! This is because when I was in the throes of a suicidal episode, I often felt compelled to seek out depictions of suicide, even though it dangerously exacerbated my negative mental state. There were times when I did Google searches for suicide in fiction because I wanted to read nothing but suicide after suicide after suicide! Warnings and tags, which weren't common at the time, would have made it oh-so-convenient to find exactly the thing that was the most dangerous for me.
The existence of a situation like mine, where warnings can both prevent and cause harm in somewhat complex ways, may not change anyone's opinion. Maybe rightfully so. Maybe my case is too rare. (After all, during the warnings debate last year, I recall at least one vehement warnings proponent claiming that suicide wasn't a "common enough" trigger, so it could safely be excluded.) Maybe there's a valid distinction to be made between "self-harm" type triggers like mine and triggers relating to sexual assault/PTSD/etc. Maybe I'm not very representative even of the suicidally inclined, and so my case can be considered but then set aside. But I am a genuine data point (to use a phrase from another person's post), and the least I should be able to expect is to be acknowledged in the course of the debate, even if it is ultimately determined that my particular data point doesn't carry a lot of weight in the larger scheme of things.
And yet, thanks to the way this debate has been framed, I can't contribute this data point without the kind of personal disclosure I mentioned above. If anyone tried to bring it up as a hypothetical, they'd be attacked for derailing or filling in the dreaded "slippery slope" bingo square.
My feeling is: I believe that the slippery slope analysis is valuable, not derailing. It's by thinking things through in advance, by testing hypothetical limits and doing thought-experiments, that we are able to reach consensus about what the community norm should be. Indeed, even when I am in favor of a change in norms, I want people to toss up all the devil's advocate arguments against it that they can think of, and I want them to raise as many concerns as possible, because that process will lead to a better-informed position on my part.
And I don't especially care if the person doing the thought-experiments has a trigger or not, so long as their reasoning is thoughtful and constructive. I don't care if the issue they raise is hypothetical or personally-experienced (and, frankly, sometimes the "hypothetical" will be anything but). I'm not even sure that I oppose warnings, necessarily, but I'd like the topic to be thoroughly debated and the implications thought through, and I hate seeing that the people who have tried to do so are being attacked. I'm glad you have given them their deserved props.
Reply
I so often feel like this. And sympathise with so much of your post, in general. Have an internet-unicorn.
Reply
Leave a comment