fandomsecrets | (no subject)

Ok, just a general announcement.

ONE, "trigger warnings" are for COMMON triggers only. Things like talk of rape, abuse, child abuse, eating disorders, self-harm, serious drug use, and suicide are common triggers. Less common ones are homo/transphobia/gender dysphoria, blood, needles, knives -- or traumatic events (Holocaust, genocides, earthquakes, 9/11, you know what I'm talking about). Gender identity is not a common trigger. Food is not a common trigger. Mudkips (mudkips, really?) are not a common trigger. Someone just gave me a secret with a trigger warning listed for a whole movie. No. You are doing triggers wrong.

TWO, RFTM. Or the FAQs, at least.
They're right here: http://community.livejournal.com/fandomsecrets/104153.html
- Why isn't my secret up!?!? Question 4.
- Why is the subs post closed!?!? Question 9.
- How come my second secret got posted before the first!? Is it lost!?!? Question 7.
- HOW DOES I JOINED!? IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.

（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

That's it. (:

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Everyone is entitled to having an opinion on something.

I agree completely. But we are all also entitled to inform others when they're opinion isn't based in fact. I didn't call them "ignorant" just because I disagree with them, I called them "ignorant" because I disagree with an opinion which is based in being underinformed.

Observing that someone is ignorant != name calling. If I called them an ignorant jerkwad, *that* would be name calling. But thanks for the attempt at concrit!

You're assuming that he doesn't know what a trigger is based on some self-proclaimed insensitive comment he wrote. Plus, if he didn't know what it meant then, he certainly knows what it means now based on all the replies.

i knew what it meant.

Whoa whoa whoa I think everybody's missing each other's point.

I think what they're trying to say is that real life doesn't come with trigger warnings, and that people shouldn't complain about lack of triggers because while they're NICE, they're not mandatory anywhere.

I don't think anybody's saying that trigger warnings are BAD, though, and I think everybody's agreeing that if possible, warnings are good for the people who might be triggered. But to demand and expect to trigger warnings from random places is expecting too much -- like, this was about feeling entitled to trigger warnings, not about trigger warnings themselves.

Kind of like well, it'd be nice if everyone were polite, but to demand and expect everyone to be polite is probably just gonna make you real angry in long run.

Y/n?

YES

Agree.

I wish you wouldn't placate and accommodate ignorant assholes. What they were "trying to say" was that people who go through traumatic experiences and can have painful memories of said experiences when triggered by certain things are being overdramatic and need to just get over it. That's a disgusting sentiment.

Either you want this comm to be a semi-safe space for trauma survivors, or you don't, it's your prerogative. You put a ton of work into this place and I'm sure a lot of people really appreciate you taking the time to add trigger warnings. Why are you trying to give meaning to the random blathering of two uneducated, insensitive, ignorant individuals?

"Most of those people do not go around WARNING PEOPLE not to talk about certain subjects when they're around. It's a waste of time and an infringement on free speech. It sucks that you have a bad reaction, but that's the way of the world and you have to get used to the fact that not everyone is going to be on the look out for you.

Especially on the internet.

Warning for triggers is a nice idea, but it's virtually pointless to do so."

Oh?

That wasn't the gist of what was originally said. They changed their story because they were both wrong and they know it. It originally, "trigger warnings shouldn't exist anywhere because the people who would appreciate having them are over-dramatic crybabies", not, "you can't expect trigger warnings from the world."

Please don't play semantics with me, I read the whole thread.
And no, it's not an infringement on free speech. Whoever you quoted there needs to take another look at the Constitution.

My point (which you didn't address) was that no, not a lot of places on the internet are going to provide trigger warnings, but if you decide to do so, it's a decision that should be respected and appreciated and not mocked because a few ignorant people don't understand the extent of trauma that others have suffered, and the negative impact that reliving that trauma can have on someone's day.

*was originally

If people want to call trigger warnings stupid and for over-dramatic crybabies, fine. They are allowed to do this. It's not nice, but they're allowed to do it. And yes, the thread did start out with that. But in the middle it turned into a discussion regarding entitlement, which is what I was responding to.

No one has to respect or appreciate my decisions. Whether they respect or appreciate them or not, they're going to stand.