“Just don’t look at it if you don’t like it,” shrugged Simon…
One of Simon’s friends, Jay Cooper, said, “I saw the thing before I knew not to look. If I’d known it was there, I wouldn’t have looked. But then I’d have still known he’d done it, which is the real issue here, if you follow me.
I really like this. Suprisingly salient
“If you don’t like it, then don’t look.”, said same demograph that can’t stop obsessing over Disney being “woke”.
The same demographic that apparently believes with every ounce of their soul that they won’t be able to explain why “woke” is wrong to their children to the point they need to abandon their long-professed belief in small government.
It really is. It’s the same victim blaming logic you get with cyber-bullying. Simply not looking at it doesn’t change the fact that it is there in the first place.
Just like trigger warnings aren’t effective and actually make things worse…
Trigger warnings aren’t effective for everyone and can sometimes make things worse is what you mean
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625
Conclusion Existing research on content warnings, content notes, and trigger warnings suggests that they are fruitless, although they do reliably induce a period of uncomfortable anticipation. Although many questions warrant further investigation, trigger warnings should not be used as a mental-health tool.
So, right in that meta-analysis, it was showing that all but one study they reviewed indicated that content warnings increased avoidance, and that in cases of avoidance anticipatory anxiety was slightly raised. Which makes sense, that’s what anxiety is. The analysis also showed that non-avoidance with a content warning did not improve anxiety responses through time to emotionally and mentally prepare for the content, compared to exposure without a content warning.
So… it gives people the choice to not engage, and offers a better outcome if you choose to not engage. Yeah, there’s more anxiety than if you didn’t come across the content warning (or content) at all, but it offers choice.
I think the how and when content warnings are used needs to be further refined and more uniformly applied, but this meta-analysis does not conclude “content warnings are a bane to society”.
I would also like to see a deeper dive scrutinizing which situations call for it and which don’t. For instance, a game like Doke Doke Literature Club absolutely needs to warn people because it is a rug pull at its heart that switches to a truly twisted, horrific display of trauma/meta story telling, so people would have walked into a potentially traumatizing trap without a trigger warning. A game like that it would be irresponsible to not have one.
To put it another way: trigger warnings are probably more effective in situations where a person can’t reasonably assume there are going to be potentially traumatizing moments/themes/etc. If you are going to see a WWII movie, you probably don’t need a trigger warning about violence/explosions/guns/etc. Though this is just my assumption and I would be very curious to see a breakdown of different situations. Suffice to say I imagine different situations call for it more than others, so making a blanket statement saying they are ineffective (other commenter) is also wrong on that front.
The conclusions that OP made about that study is quite interesting to me personally cause I experience both sides of it. There are certain content warnings that I take note of and decide if I have the mental energy to consume the content healthily. Sometimes I’m completely fine, sometimes the warning has me on edge till it happens, and sometimes I decide to nope out for now.
Tho with a young teen in my house, it’s helpful to know if an episode of something is going to go into places that will mess with them or if it’s completely age in appropriate. If something has an 18+ rating for an episode but only has profanity and gore as the advisory, I’m fine with my 15 year old watching it. If it’s got nudity, sexual violence, eating disorder etc, then it’s going to be a pass (or at least screened or having a follow up convo).
Considering they share in a lot of the content I’m consuming, and the majority of my time is spent watching internet content rather than produced media. It’s one thing for Netflix to have an age rating and content warnings but I really appreciate warnings on YouTube video since it’s really hard to predict what’s going to come up.
I wonder if there would be significant differences if a wider range of content was included. For example: Books, websites, games, streams, YouTube, movies, series, music, podcasts.
Based on nothing but wild speculation, I think music would be at the bottom of effectiveness and books at the top.
Really interesting questions and considerations here. My kids are not that old, but I definitely think about how to manage potentially harmful content with them. It doesn’t help that the US has incredibly clear rules about how sex is portrayed on screen, but not blood/violence/gore/sexual violence in particular and the horrors that come with all of that. You go from decade to decade and PG-13/PG just radically shift all over the place - old Bond films are a classic example of this.
In the absence of somewhat legible MPAA ratings I just feel like more specific content warnings are a necessity.
Trigger warning...
…work if they are done properly
I’m convinced most of them are Russian bots. Now with be help of chat gpt
give em the old “ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about frogs”
Is the name of that man Lemmy?
People don’t get offended on the internet, they just rage for the bait.
for some “the spectrum” is become a lonely corner quadrant rarely visited by anyone with tasks to finish or a sense of self-kindness
Bro is posting from the 2004 Compaq special
Is Lemmy getting more conservative? Now you think offending people is bad?
Sorry you get an F in reading comprehension. Or are you actually masterfully trolling by posting something deliberatlely offensive.
If you’re offended by something then it means your ideas are challenged which left wingers like/support
If someone just calls you a name then left wingers don’t care. We might form an opinion of the person based on it but we don’t find it offensive
There is a difference between stating your thoughts/opinions then people being offended vs saying something that you know is offensive (which the headline indicates is the case) then people being offended. The former may challenge beliefs, while the latter likely lacks that line of thought. You may be mischaracterizing all instances of offense as challenging ideas when some may just be hurtful for the sake of being hurtful.
I’m not sure why you think *all *left-wing people don’t care about being called names, or why that would be a trait of left-wing people specifically. It just seems like an overly generalized statement about a group based on your personal experience.
If I tell you to fuck yourself with a rake, which ideas am I challenging?
Sometimes people say shit that’s just awful. There’s not some grand philosophical debate to be had. They’re acting badly and being called out on it. Don’t treat a blanket term for their miserable behavior into a fnord you’ll automatically judge as positive and one-sided.
None, so I’m not offended
I’m not getting baited into finding out this instance’s boundaries, just to prove mere insults can extend beyond what you consider tolerable. You know damn well there are words that would cut you. Most of them aren’t challenging anything besides basic human decency. I could guess your cultural background, and politely describe an alarming variety of archaic prejudices, phrased artfully to wind up anyone who’s not feigning indifference to avoid admitting they were simply wrong.
There are probably people out there who think you should not be allowed to vote, or breed, or live.
When those assholes express these beliefs, calling them assholes and demanding they fuck right off with that shit is not somehow a contradiction. It is not any definition of conservative. It’s having standards. It’s what led you to comment with confusion about your nonsense definitions - the response to this article challenged what you think “offensive” means, and you refused to just look it up and check.
I’m a leftist, I’m not going to get offended by insults
I might not like you for it but I’m not going to be offended (see other comment)
Your understanding of left and right is total fucking nonsense.
You don’t even know what being offended means. If I say some rude shit, and you find that morally objectionable… that’s what offense is. Look it up and check. If the things I tell you make you think less of me as a person, or cause you to label me a douchebag, or just annoy you to the point you stop listening, that’s what being offended is, genius.
It doesn’t mean you’re less open to having your mind opened or whateverthefuck hippie horseshit you think makes you an anarchist. It doesn’t mean my vulgar condemnation of your whole deal was a meaningful criticism. It also doesn’t mean my vulgar condemnation of your whole deal wasn’t a meaningful criticism. I’ve said some blunt shit to people that they desperately needed to hear. Case in point.
Calling awful shit awful is not what being conservative means, and if you cannot refute that notion beyond repeating your conclusions, then what you’re doing is trolling and you need to fucking stop.
deleted by creator
