I had to read and re-read the article several times because I couldn't figure out what about it was supposed to be eloquent about it. In the end I gave up and am now trying to formulate a coherent response.
The article was unnecessarily long for the number of points it made, those being A, There's a vast difference between trigger warnings and content notes, and lots of people are confusing the two and failing to see the purpose behind them; B, neither are censorship, content creators need to, "ask themselves why it's so important for them to maintain the 'purity' of their art over their potential audiences."
Quoting the article, here's the difference between trigger warnings and content notes:
"Trigger warnings were originally implemented with a very specific and very clear function: to tag content that contained traumatic material for the benefit of people who experience panic attacks, PTSD flashbacks, and other responses to such material ... Which would allow them to decide whether they wanted to consume a given piece of media, or would allow them to prepare for something that might be traumatic.""Content notes ... were implemented as a ... way to provide information about the contents of something to allow people to decide if they wanted to engage with it."Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference between the two is whether or not the content within has the potential to cause trauma, that all trigger warnings are content notes, but not all content notes are trigger warnings? Again, feel free to enlighten me, but I fail to see the importance of trigger warnings as defined when content notes as defined accomplish the same exact goal. It seems to me that content notes are the exact same thing but in a broader sense. I must be confusing the two then, because why bother to include a trigger warning when content notes would do?
If content notes don't provide a warning about the content equivalent to what one would get from a trigger warning, then why bother with content notes? Books, movies, and video games all have adequate descriptions about what they contain. There are rating systems in place to tell you what you can expect from them. If a back cover description or a movie rating can't adequately warn you about content within, then why even bother with content notes that,
"provide information about the contents of something to allow people to decide if they wanted to engage with it." That's the entire purpose of ratings and synopses, to provide information about content within.
So trigger warnings do the same thing as content notes, albeit to a more specific degree, and content notes do the same thing as a rating or synopsis. If this is true, then why do we need trigger warnings on media that already has an adequate system for it? Why should a game rated M for blood, gore, intense violence, sexual content, strong language, and use of drugs need a trigger warning reading, "TW: This title depicts the use of illicit drugs"? With that sort of rating, must you really be warned away from it if you know you are sensitive to anything on that list?
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that triggers are a real issue and that they vary wildly and unpredictably. However, the article specifically says,
"Trigger warnings aren't designed to protect people from content they don't want to see because it would harm their delicate little snowflake sensibilities. They are designed to help people manage their interactions with the world so they can function." Triggers are too varied for it to be feasible to list all potential triggers before each movie or game. I've seen people complain that
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo movie needed a trigger warning before it, which is ludicrous, because it's MPAA rating is R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language. Those people either knew the rating and continued anyway, in which case they have no right to complain, or they didn't see the rating, in which case they are at fault for not fully understanding what they were getting into. Ratings and synopses exist to give people an idea of what they're getting into, everything else is up to them. No other warnings are necessary.
Now, I said necessary because I think that ratings and synopses are necessary. I never watch a movie without knowing it's rating first. I never read a book without first figuring out what it's about. If you do, you're setting yourself up for a traumatic or uncomfortable situation eventually, especially if you read or watch or play anything intended for people older than 13. That said, I think it's perfectly fine if a content creator wants to preface their work with an additional warning. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 contains a mission in which you are part of a massacre of civilians in an airport. The game was rated M for Blood, Drug Reference, Intense Violence, Language, and I think that is enough. However, the developers included an in game warning about the above mission and an option to skip it, should you wish, which I also think is okay. What is not okay, and this brings about my second point, is if they were forced to include that choice.
The second point of the article is that neither trigger warnings nor content notes are forms of censorship, and then goes on to say that content creators should, "ask themselves why it's so important for them to maintain the 'purity' of their art over their potential audiences." Purity of art is the entire purpose of art! Freedom of creativity is the whole reason why we create! As a content creator, it's not my job to control the experiences of my audience. I'm under no responsibility to warn anyone what my content may or may not contain, and
I shouldn't be. Trigger warnings are not censorship, but only if they are used willingly and without coercion by the content creator. The minute it becomes mandatory is the minute it becomes censorship.
I'm not saying the article is advocating mandatory trigger warnings; it's actually very careful to avoid doing just that. It's making a moral argument for them by using phrases like,
"So you want to make people uncomfortable with your work -- but do you want to actively harm people with it?" However, that's where the argument falls apart. No, I don't want to actively harm somebody with my work, therefor I'll put a trigger warning in front of it. Thus, a trigger warning is a way to prevent or mitigate harm. Not only does this conflict with what the author said earlier,
"Trigger warnings aren't designed to protect people from content they don't want to see," but it's also both harmful in itself and also incredibly condescending. If you go around putting a warning in front of all your work, you reinforce a victim mentality. If you treat everyone like their a delicate flower that will break at the slightest wind, they will start to think the same way. I don't even need to mention how harmful this can to women when it reinforces the unjust message that they receive all their lives, that they are inherently fragile and require protection. Trigger warnings intended to protect women or minorities or those with mental illnesses contributes to the perception that members of those groups are weak, or somehow "other". Traumas that impact women, minorities, LGBT people, and the mentally ill are set apart as different, as particularly traumatizing, and trigger warnings for such traumas imply that their experiences are so strange that works dealing with attacks against them have to be viewed with an inordinate amount of caution.
Secondly, if a trigger warning is a way to prevent or mitigate harm by enabling someone to avoid a triggering thought or image, it's actively undermining that person's ability to recover effectively from whatever traumatic event they experienced. Confronting triggers, not avoiding them, is the best way to recover from a traumatic experience.
This study by the Institute of Medicine details how, in patients suffering from PTSD, especially resulting from traumas such as sexual assault, exposure therapy is the most efficacious treatment. Clients who practice confronting progressively more challenging trigger situations come to realize that their fear subsides, and find their PTSD alleviated. In addition, having trauma become central to one's sense of identity is harmful to your mental health.
This study published in the Journal of Traumatic Stress indicates that, "among 102 women who reported histories of childhood sexual abuse, the more central their abuse was to their identity, the worse their PTSD symptoms.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I do
not think trigger warnings on roleplays are necessary. I feel that the tag system, and the role play description tab are adequate enough, and if they are not, it is the players responsibility to ask the GM for further information. That said, any GM is and should be free to use them at their own discretion in their own roleplay, and any player is and should be free to put them on their own posts. In fact, I even see the appeal for them in roleplays because there is no standardized system of ratings beyond the "adult" tag. Still, I fail to see the need to put a big warning in front of it if you've adequately described the roleplay in it's description tab. And if the roleplay is of the sort that accommodates potentially triggering posts without being potentially triggering itself, such that you'd need to tag individual posts as potentially triggering, then you haven't described the roleplay limits well enough. Before any posting even begins, the content limits set by the gm should be established. If someone is reading or participating in a roleplay that describes itself as "PG-13", there shouldn't be any posts depicting graphic violence or intense swearing. On the other hand, in a roleplay that describes itself as mature, and carries the "adult" tag, one should expect those things, and no per post warning is necessary. Like with books and movies, the GM of a roleplay has the responsibility to accurately describe his creation, but beyond that, warnings aren't needed. Each player has the responsibility to only join roleplays that they are comfortable with, as well as all the responsibilities of determining if a roleplay is or isn't okay with them.
Like I said, If you want to issue trigger warnings in roleplays, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to do it in mine, and don't get mad at me when I don't.
Whew, monster post. Sorry, I have a strong opinion on this subject.