Bassoon wrote:You're advocating that society, as a whole, take on the "exposure therapy" approach to all individuals who have PTSD. Though exposure therapy has been shown to help, it doesn't necessarily work for everyone. Further, exposure therapy isn't as simple as "do stuff that may trigger you." There's a ton more that goes into it than that, and just because a psychologist suggests that exposure therapy may be key for some people with PTSD to become better doesn't mean that society should then shove all people with PTSD into events that make them uncomfortable. Society is not a trained psychologist.
No, he's advocating that society (well, universities) not, as a whole, disgard exposure therapy and mandate their opposite.
There's a middle ground between "mandate trigger warnings" and "force students to watch graphic depictions of rape". "Allow the use of trigger warnings" is even in that gap.
Do you think the film rating system is inappropriate, that a viewer shouldn't know beforehand about intense violence, sexual scenes, inappropriate language, among other things? What about for video games? Obviously those systems are tightly-controlled by small subsets of people who assign arbitrary ratings, but don't people have some right to know what they're getting into before they get into it? If I told you Toni Morrison's Beloved featured intense violence, rape, and sexual themes, does that ruin the book in any way?
I think the idea is nice.
I think the execution is so heavily corrupt, politicized, and filled with bigotry as to create more of a problem than it potentially solves.
The MPAA and ESRB are terrible, terrible examples for whether a trigger warning system should be mandated.
In addition, you're conflating something that is purportedly a health measure (trigger warnings) with ideals of avoiding Caveat emptor, which is completely irrelevant and not an ethical component of this debate.
We shouldn't be discussing whether content descriptions makes a book "less enjoyable" to the buyer -- we're supposed to be discussing whether mandating trigger warnings would be beneficial and practical within the system of secondary education.
To my knowledge, none of the people in this thread who are advocating for the use of trigger warnings in academic contexts are under the impression that trigger warnings function as a treatment for PTSD. A trigger warning is no more a "treatment" for PTSD (or whatever the underlying condition is) than a "Contains peanuts" label is a "treatment" for a peanut allergy. It is not supposed to get rid of the condition. It is supposed to make living with the condition (which one may be simultaneously treating using some of those well-established, evidence-based treatments) less unpleasant. We are not claiming that trigger warnings are effective at treating these conditions. That is not the point. They are intended to ameliorate symptoms, not to cure the underlying condition.
A "contains peanuts" label is
a treatment for a peanut allergy, because it allows quality of life to be maintained without making it worse in the long run.
If the quoted experts are correct (which, that's up to their psychiatric establishment to decide), then trigger warnings are not only not an effective treatment, but actually act to make the condition worse in the long run -- that, in conjunction
with the threat of the process becoming discriminatory or neglectful of minorities, or the threat of a chilling effect, would be a very good reason why trigger warnings would be hugely bad.
The central questions should be: in the long run, are trigger warnings better for the patient's mental health, or inhibitive; and if they're inhibitive, are they beneficial enough to secondary education (and thus, having a job) to be worth the temporary health sacrifice?
After that, it's just a matter of making a system that isn't hugely corrupt and inefficient.
An analogy: say someone has injured their knee. They go out and buy a knee brace to wear sometimes in their everyday life. It reduces the pain that they experience while walking around, etc. They talk to their doctor, who says, "Hey, you know, if you wear that brace too much, it may actually work against the healing and re-strengthening that your knee needs to do." And then it's up to the person with the knee injury: they have medical advice about the downsides of relying too heavily on this pain reduction tool, and they can make their own informed decision about how to proceed. They may end up using the brace too much and fucking up the knee's recovery process. This is not generally seen as an argument against making knee braces available.
Is this, like, actually a thing? My understanding was that you wear braces only because your body needs them, not because they make life easier in the short term. I know when I had a cast, or had my mouth wired shut, the doctor had to constantly urge me to keep them on and not try to subvert them.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.