I appreciate them. You are what you eat. That goes for what you put in your eyes and ears as much as your mouth

eh, shit i’ve read and seen on a screen, while it may have bothered me at the time, isn’t actual trauma, which does not fucking ask permission.

And yeah, there’s media that triggers that-but it’s media. I close it. I leave. I can. it’s not actually happening to me, right now.

I think it’s a decent notion, to annotate. It’s for sure people trying to be good for one another, and that’s laudable.

But. As I said, the worst of the world does not ask permission, and I think enforcement of content tags or what have you would likely lead directly to even more oppression and censorship in the storm of that which we are currently in.

I will say ao3’s pretty on point about it, from what i’ve seen-it’s voluntary, and it’s actually voluntary. How you keep that across the ages is anyone’s guess

I think it’s content dependent. I lean towards not having them, but I can think of a couple episodes of the magicians where I would have appreciated the warning instead of the after the fact help line screen. It’s also true that adding a warning lessens the impact of the scene being warned about which I think is also counterproductive.

I think we need more granular ratings than we currently have. Kickass and I Spit on Your Grave having the same R rating is essentially meaningless.

Depends. I’m fine with most stuff, but I certainly want warnings if a video is titled “revolving door fail” but the content warning is “NSFL” (dude got his fingers caught and visibly cut off)

Not having a NSFL tag would be a major disservice to the viewer.

I think of them like food content warnings for non-lethal allergies, like lactose intolerance. It’s a kindness to have a warning that helps people avoid shitting their pants. However, we all need to recognize that it is just that, a kindness. There is an inherent risk when someone says ‘hey, taste this.’ If you have a high sensitivity, you have a responsibility for self-care through self-denial. If you were uncertain if a food contained something to which you had an extreme sensitivity, you’d say ‘no, thank you.’ Same holds true for the whole world of media. You can hope for kindness, and put in the effort give it to others where you will, but don’t trust that it will always be given to you because it is an extra effort.

All content is upsetting to someone.

Many commenters would self-censor, at best, toward a “common man” kind of shock tolerance. This doesn’t help those people who need trigger warnings for way more.

I can’t see how to resolve that vast gulf.

Just to head this off at the pass, because someone is bound to bring up exposure therapy: hi, hello, I am someone who has been through exposure therapy (technically Exposure/Response Prevention, or ERP). Yes, it is broadly speaking true that avoiding triggers increases anxiety in the long run. However, one thing that was stressed to me over and over in ERP is that exposures have to be VOLUNTARY to be beneficial. Meaning, just hucking a tarantula at someone with arachnophobia is going to do far more harm than good. Likewise showing them a bunch of pictures of spiders with no warning. However, putting a content warning puts the decision to engage back into the hands of the person with the phobia (or trauma, eating disorder, etc), which effectively turns it into a voluntary exposure should they choose to engage.

It depends on the implementation. Some good implementations are: Tags on AO3, Content Warnings at the beginning Movies/TV, using tags on the fediverse There is one implementation that really bothers me and it’s the Content Warning on the fediverse, the fact that it hides the whole post by default means that most of the time I end up expanding the content and seeing it anyways. I would prefer if the fediverse would just move to spoiler tags where you can hide only the content that the warning is for:

I hate graphic depictions of sexual violence. Moves like “A Clockwork Orange”, “The Accused”, and “Requiem for a Dream” all have scenes that I wish I didn’t remember.

Content warnings are information that allow media watchers to make informed decisions. People who are annoyed by them are just contrarian assholes with the teenage mentality that gore and cusswords are cool.

Depends on what are they warning me about. If it is about gore of something similar I can appreciate it, if it about foul language they can shove that warning up their asses.

I saw a post once that had a content warning for music. Just. Music.

I absolutely appreciate them. They give me the chance to decide for myself whether to engage with a topic, depending on where I’m at. Suicide is often hard for me to deal with, due to my own family circumstances, so sometimes I want to get in and help people who are struggling, but other times, I just need to avoid the discussion for my own wellbeing. Content warnings give me the opportunity to make that choice

Do you feel content warnings are beneficial?

Nope. Quite the contrary.

But it may be worth mentioning I’m getting old (nearing my 60s) and I have been educated in a now remote time where the idea that being confronted with hardship and with failure is what would help us learn to overcome them. Not being shielded from them.

do you thing there are better ways to address dark topics?

Confront shit ideas with better ideas. The rest, any form of censorship or control, never works, never did and I doubt will ever.

Heck, aged 16 my best friend and I decided to read Mein Kampf in order to understand how that ‘Nazi’ stuff managed to seduce so many people. While we were reading it, as seriously as we would have read any other book, we just discussed it freely meaning without fear of being judged (‘being cancelled’ one may say nowadays): we would point out stupid shit as well as things that seemed not, to young us at least, not that stupid trying to confront them through a free and open discussion. Decades later, I can safely say it was one of the best cure against me ever risking getting ‘seduced’ by those shit ideas and the hate they thrive(d) on.

Depends on the magnitude of what is being warned of.

“Warning, graphic gore”? Absolutely appreciated. “Contains scenes of actual combat, those with PTSD may wish to leave the room”? Yeah totally reasonable. “This book contains vivid descriptions of sexual abuse”? I can see why people would be squicked out by that.

But then we get into the absurd side of it. A film about the Holocaust, needing to warn its viewers that some contents may be distressing? Wow. You don’t say. A memoir about a tragic death, needing to put a warning that… someone dies? “This politics discussion may discuss slavery, racism, and oppression”? Oh no, we have to think about upsetting things that happened!

And before someone suggests those are unrealistic hyperbole, those are all things I’ve seen. I don’t feel those are helpful.

If you get a little anxious when you read a trigger warning that is your issue to deal with.