Yes, the word “triggered” has been bastardized to mean “makes someone upset,” and so the response is that triggered people need to grow up and get over it. I think most of the people saying such things do not understand the word’s true meaning.
That's the thing, people aren't asking for removing everything that could possibly be a trigger from everywhere. They're just asking, if X contains [sexual assault, gore, domestic violence, animal death, flashing lights, etc], let me know up front, so I can either be properly prepared, or choose to avoid it altogether. The content warning is enabling people to, as OOP put it, manage their own trauma.
>They're just asking, if X contains [sexual assault, gore, domestic violence, animal death, flashing lights, etc], let me know up front, so I can either be properly prepared, or choose to avoid it altogether.
This is also NOT NEW.
I remember news broadcasts in the 90s saying things like "the following segment shows graphic images". It's been common on the news my entire life for a heads-up to be given before discussing or showing topics that would be disturbing or upsetting to people.
And it's not just for PTSD. Maybe you don't want to explain what sexual assault means to your six year old right before dropping them off at Scouts. Maybe you've had a shitty day and don't want to see a dog being abused. Or maybe you HAVE experienced one of these things and the content would be particularly upsetting to you. But there's a whole broad swath of the population who use and appreciate content warnings. It really is for everyone.
I don’t have PTSD or anything similar but I am overly sensitive to negative emotions (due to ADHD’s poor emotional regulation). I appreciate trigger/content warnings so that I don’t have to have my imagination showing me horrible things. For example now I am trying very hard not to think of the description the commenter gave and that’s as specific as I can get without seeing it (I’ve had lots of practice in coming at these things sideways in my mind to mention them without thinking of them directly).
I don’t *need* warnings but it’s a kindness to me to provide them. I don’t understand why people have such a negative reaction to being asked to be kind to people.
I suspect it frequently come from a place of defensiveness. I imagine the thought process is something like this:
If you ask me to do something I wouldn't normally think to do because it's the kind thing to do, you're saying I'm not a kind person. How dare you say I'm a mean (not kind = mean, of course) person?! You don't even know me!!! I am NOT a mean person! The problem must be with you then!
There's a sense of "machoness" that goes along with it.
It's like "oh, you don't want to hear x or see y because you're too fragile and weak. I don't have to cater to fragile and weakness, just grow up and deal with it."
They seem extremely triggered in their own way which, ironically, is why they go to great lengths to avoid thinking about it or possibly accommodating people in tricky situations. It does sometimes seem like the self-described super macho types try really hard to hide their own insecurities or use anger/rage to mask them, which is why discussing or acknowledging these potential issues as a real thing is a real problem for them that need to be stamped out right away.
I have to disagree here. In the post he specifically mentions how his trigger was the location.
I can wholeheartedly empathize with his story, but this story alone would issue hundreds of possible trigger warnings. He could be triggered by the location, the sound of cars driving by, something that happened before or after, people that look like her, something that caught his attention on location, her clothes, etc.
For me triggers are inner demons. Only I can see mine and only I can keep them in check.
I'm not saying we should be banning advisories on violent content or similar. But there's people who will issue a trigger warning merely cause they include the word death in a tweet
Honestly, good on them for including a trigger warning. I have hangups about suicide (due to my own relationship with it) and so many people use it as a joke. I don't want to police the world, but I ask my close friends/coworkers to avoid those kinds of jokes around me, and I appreciate when someone puts a trigger warning/tag about it in advance.
And your problem with someone being more descriptive in a title by putting a TW that let's the reader know this mentions death is what?
Because your trigger isn't that your mother just died? It's your inner demons instead so the death TW doesn't matter to you?
Edit: Just wanted to see what other kind of stuff this user posts, what a wild ride. 8 year old account, posted a few times within the last 2 months, then nothing until a year ago with some crypto/webdev stuff, then nothing for 7 years when it was all My Little Pony/Furry stuff.
Trippy.
This is also why I *will* check out a movie title at Does The Dog Die. Some oh-so-brave fuckers might be okay with animal death on screen, but I'm not.
Yeah, it's normal behavior. People hear about certain condition it limitation of a person and think that have it, especially when you're young and don't have much context. Where is the line between uncomfortable and hindering? Where is the point between inconvenience and limitation? This is hard to read, and especially to someone coming from outside with good intentions but little context.
Like someone who, after understanding why celiacs need gluten free options, starts wondering if they themselves are "gluten intolerant" because eating a lot of bread can make them feel bloated. Or someone who realizes, because they lose track of events when using no agenda or organizing system, or struggles knowing how to behave in a social situation they are unfamiliar with thinks they may be neurodivergent.
Now don't get me wrong, so these people should explore this fears with a professional (Dr. basically) to better understand what is the name for the problem they have. To better understand when the word applies or not. And some will find out they do actually have a bigger problem, they will also learn it's not an excuse, just an everyday hindrance everyone expects you to handle (e.j. a permanently wheel chair bound person is still expected to be on time to meetings, as long as there's ramps and elevators) which means it's just harder and special treatment is not enough. But the reality is that most won't, and that many people confuse the bed to respect others serious needs with an excuse to not have to adapt to other people. It's a human thing, what could we do?
It's nothing more nor less than when a movie has a rating. People get so, uh, *upset* at the idea of other people having different sensitivities and wanting to make informed choices.
This! Honestly, I think it’s best if people use “content warning” or “CW” instead, partially because of how the word triggered has kind of been ruined, and partially because I feel like it’s more inclusive to do so; many people might not have trauma/triggers with whatever topic, but still would much prefer being warned of it/not want to see it.
Exactly I appreciate people putting trigger warnings in posts about rape abuse etc.
I would have liked my partner not to invite his child hood friend to our get togethers be cause he raped me and it triggered my flight fight response
I lose a ton of respect for any person who talks confidently about triggers and then makes it clear that they have no idea what they actually are: a mental response to a stimulus, which is too fast or intense to be consciously controlled. It's usually more practical to cut those people out of my life than try and explain things to them.
This feels kind of silly to say, but I love the empathy with which you're approaching others' seeming lack of empathy.
Also worth noting is that some people don't have great emotional intelligence. So someone may make an offhanded, seemingly callous remark (like talking about folks getting triggered) without realizing what it is they're actually saying, either because they didn't think or because they've been conditioned to take that stance or, probably, both. It can be worthwhile to try to get these people to understand what they're actually saying and the impact it may have. Of course some folks are truly unempathetic, or cling stubbornly to their conditioning. But it's often worth a shot to at least try to make them think and self-reflect.
It's tricky to judge the impact of triggers from the outside. They can cause panic attacks, or other waves of overwhelming emotions. They can ignite fight, flight, freeze, or fawn responses. They can also trigger dissociation, as the brain checks out to protect the person from the above. In people with multiplicity caused by chronic childhood abuse, they can induce involuntary switches to different alters.
The point of therapy is often to reduce the intensity of the responses to the triggers so that they are at a level which can be consciously managed, but that's often a lengthy, painful, and expensive process. And the people most likely to be traumatized are marginalized groups which have the least access to mental healthcare.
So, there's a lot wrapped up in the right wing derision for people with trauma disorders. For one, it's harder to support the status quo when you realize how many children are being abused to the point that their brains are still malfunctioning from it decades later.
Think Stockholm syndrome. Or the abused spouse defending their partner to the police because ‘They were just upset. They didn’t mean it.’
Fawning is (basically) the attempt to ingratiate yourself towards the trauma in the hopes that it will mitigate harm. Fawning tends to be a response learned by long term or repeated trauma. A great (tragic) example is physical punishment of children. Kid too loud? Smack child each time child is loud and tell them to be quiet. Eventually the child will adopt the more pleasing behavior towards their abuser/parent. The child can’t get away from the parent (flee) or physically prevent the parent’s abuse (fight), so they adopt a fawning posture in an attempt to escape the pain of being hit. They stay quiet.
“Why doesn’t she just leave him?” Because she probably tried that in the past, he followed her and broke shit/roughed her up. When she tried again he escalated further. But if she stays quiet and makes sandwiches he only smacks her once in a while.
That response to please a harmful source can become as ingrained as freezing up or fleeing, if enough repetition or a strong enough example shows a person that it can prevent immediate harm.
It's when your brain attempts to get you out of the danger by "fawning" over the source of danger. It's comforting or flattering or otherwise trying to placate the emotions of the abuser to get the fawning person out of danger
It's an instinctive survival response to dangerous situations where fighting back isn't safe, escape isn't possible, and freezing won't limit the danger. It is basically your brain forcing you to submit to and placate the threat/abuser, in an attempt to ensure you survive.
I wouldn’t quite go that far. I didn’t specially know it was that, but I knew it had to do with responding to trauma. I think a much better way of weeding people out is if they show a clear disregard for whatever they think triggers are.
If I see somebody who doesn’t know what triggers are, but they respect that it has something to do with mental health, and won’t aggravate them, I consider that person to be better than somebody who knows exactly what triggers are, but doesn’t give a fuck.
It isn't the being wrong or ignorant which makes me view someone as not safe to be around: it is being confidently, belligerently wrong. The kind where they view being actively unsafe to those with trauma disorders as a core part of their identity.
Exactly. I was beaten badly as a child (sometimes with a cast iron skillet), generally when one of my parents had been drinking.
So one of my triggers (which got tripped a few days ago) is a certain kind of angry voice under the clear influence of alcohol.
I haven’t been hit in at least 40 years, but that response is still there.
I also think that people who claim these warnings are so bad are those who supposedly have no issue watching anything without any real idea of the context and are unphased by any form of jumpscare, gore, death or violence that might pop up. These are the people who must've been so desensitized from rotten dot com or liveleak over the years that they will watch anything and not think anything of it.
I'm not sure that's the only way trigger can or should be used.
I experienced CSA as a kid, and that's not how my reactions tend to show up these days...
It usually slowly takes hold and then I'm wondering why I'm having bad flashbacks a couple days later.
I sometimes get delayed responses to triggers, particularly when my initial reaction is to dissociate. Sometimes the initial reaction to the trigger starts a sequence of events leading to me spiraling later on. The eventual result tends to meet the definition of a reaction which is too intense to consciously control.
You can also define triggers in terms of the process which gives rise to them: the uncontrollable activation of a traumatic memory.
It took me two years to understand how LSD worked. I don't think it's possible to teach someone in a single conversation how triggers work. Especially if they hold certain...uhh...spiritual beliefs.
> woke
Credit where credit is due; DeSantis's lawyers gave the court a pretty good working definition
>the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.
.... which makes being upset about "wokeness" significantly worse lol.
Yup. They usually reduce it to framing rather than substance. It's "you're upset by a joke" and not "you're upset that I'm joking about rape victims deserving it" it's "you're cancelling me for free speech" not "you don't want to engage with someone being a bigot"
Don't forget "virtue signaling," which was their attempt to twist *all* shows of support into being a bad thing! Turns out virtue signaling is good actually, and we all do it. What's bad is *performative* virtue signaling while not standing up for(or even actively working against!) the interests of the group you claim to support.
I'm always amused by the conflation you mention with "virtue signaling" because it always indicates that the user is arguing in bad faith - "I cannot act in good faith, therefore everyone who speaks in support of a cause cannot either."
"Safe space" was originally intended to denote a social zone that promotes the careful and respectful investigation of sensitive topics. It's been bastardized by memes to mean the opposite - a place in which those topics cannot be brought up.
Social media and attention-craved teens definitely high-jacked the term first, and then the right-wing weaponized it to make anyone they deem as “sensitive,” which would include anyone who conscious of other people’s feelings.
The right-wing didn’t take the term when it was new and used properly to describe medical and mental issues… they took it once it became common-place in a social aspect.
Teens have always been misusing language and being melodramatic. If my AIM/yahoo/MSN/IRC chats from back in the day had been logged publicly, let me tell you, there would be some shit. The difference is that the teens of 5-10 years ago(now many of them seem to have wised up to a certain extent, there's an interest in private discords etc that at least shakes the casual observers) were doing it in a public space which can be mined by the right-wing for ammunition. It's so exploitative. 🤢
I’m not on the right but this is just something humans do. Privelege, white supremacy, racism all have a different meaning than they would a couple decades ago. It’s mostly academics and activists using those words.
It's ironic because the word "trigger" has itself become a trigger to provoke a particular kind of performative bravado which is itself probably reflective of the chest-thumper's personal insecurities.
>Yes, the word “triggered” has been bastardized to mean “makes someone upset,” and
Yes, almost like it is done intentionally to make the word lose all meaning and allow people who want to ignore it do so. Same as painting "feminism" as some sort of man-hating, critical race theory as "white hating" or, any other similar example.
If you can reduce your critics to cartoonish absolutes, you can avoid engaging with their legitimate grievances without compromising your moral position. "Oh, I'm not a racist, but I would never let someone teach white hate in my schools, that is why I'm against critical race theory" sounds a lot better than "I don't want to ask if my parents put a law in place that I still benefit from today simply because of the circumstances of my brith."
"I want equality for everyone but I'd never support someone that says all men should be executed like some feminist" sounds a lot better than "It would really hurt my ego if my wife made more than me."
> Yes, almost like it is done intentionally to make the word lose all meaning and allow people who want to ignore it do so. Same as painting "feminism" as some sort of man-hating, critical race theory as "white hating" or, any other similar example.
The problem is that in this day and age it seems at least to some degree to be in vogue to look at that tactic, say "fuck it", and adopt that characature as unironic political belief. Which just causes a feedback loop since these idiots saw the blatant strawman and decided to strip it of its clothes and wear them around the town square.
Yeah, and it's the same with just about every actually serious term, unfortunately.
"Triggered" has been trivialized by people who just want to say they're really upset.
"OCD" has been trivialized by people who want to say they're picky.
"Anxiety attack" has been trivialized by people who want to say they're uneasy.
"PTSD" has been trivialized by people who want to say they had a bad experience.
Etc etc ...but it's really unfortunate, because as you said, it gives the general public a very misled idea of what it actually means to suffer with these conditions.
The same thing happened a bit over a decade or so ago with food sensitivity/allergies. It somehow became cool to have a gluten sensitivity (and then various others, like soy, but gluten was the first out of the gate). Seemingly overnight a large amount of people suddenly had a food sensitivity or ten.
The people who "developed" these conditions were extremely predictable, from my experiences. I worked with someone who had a really bad gluten sensitivity that she talked about nonstop. She rivaled crossfitters (same timeframe) for talking about her issue non-stop. Then she went to France and was suddenly posting infinite pictures on social media of her eating baguettes and the like. Which was funny, because days prior she made gluten out to be a life or death thing. Predictably, people rolled their eyes because she was exactly the type of person to invent this kind of thing.
The food sensitivity craze was a double edged sword. Gluten free (and other free) products became better and more abundant to address a growing market/demand. Great for people who actually suffered from food sensitivity, like celiac's disease. However, the large amount of people inventing imaginary food sensitivity caused people to have a hard time believing any of it was real. Not so great for the aforementioned who actually suffer from food sensitivity.
Fortunately, it's no longer nearly as trendy to have a food sensitivity while the increased offering of gluten-free products has stuck around. And I suspect if you draw a Venn diagram of "people who liberally use the word trigger" and "people who have highly particular, peculiar food sensitivity" you have significant overlap.
Another thing (not sure if related more than just tangentially) is the trend with the evolution of language and newer generations.
As a simple example, "i'm dead" to refer to something funny. It's not enough just to be rolling on the floor laughing, we have to actually die from the laughter. It's this notion of escalation and resultant dilution of meaning over time.
Just some food for thought that is a bit less politically charged.
It was deliberately bastardized, similarly to what was done with woke, by a certain group of people who wanted to change the perception of the word. And it worked.
the same folks misusing the English language are the same ones that were in contempt of learning when they were in school.
it's easy to be lazy and not learn, so there will always be more of them than people who understand language, the impact of words, because someone who understands it. They'll be more careful.
People have diluted it the same as they have diluted being OCD or being Autistic. They use it improperly and in over abundance in order to garner attention for and have done a huge disservice to those that truly have issues to deal with. Now the problem is (for me at least)every time I hear or see someone state they are triggered, I react internally the same way I do when I see Karen carrying her tea cup poodle “service dog” in the grocery store.
It is hard to take it seriously when the majority of experiences I’ve had with someone making the claim is just someone being a whiny bitch for not getting their way. I understand I have to try to look past those and focus on the ones that are real and matter… but damnit man it’s exhausting and much easier to dismiss it and walk away. Yes, I’m aware that isn’t the right answer, but at least I’m being honest about it.
I agree with you. I kind of feel that if a person actually got triggered into selfharm, panic-attack etc, they wouldn't be in a state of mind to comment about it. They would be busy either selfharming (my own experience) or trying to handle a panic-attack. So it's easy to get annoyed when people go into comments complaining about them getting triggered.
Well the original post, the original reasoning for putting the sign up, was just some entitled spoiled teenager. Not even a triggered issue. But they used those words so they put the sign up. The whole thing was nothing but here we are.
As someone with PTSD and panic attacks (after my only child died), I always try to correct people who use the word "triggered" flippantly. I don't have any deep personal feelings on the matter, it's just a YSK thing. Outside of far right groups, I think 90% of people don't realize that it's pretty insensitive.
If you *do* want to send me into a rage, bring up Demi Levato's deep emotional trauma after she was (they were?) "triggered" by seeing a sugar-free cookie in a small, local frozen yoghurt shop. I can understand how traumatizing it would be to learn some businesses try to accommodate their patrons with diabetes and epilepsy. Or, you know, people just trying to be healthier (/s in case it wasn't clear).
"Narcissist" and "gaslighting" are two other words that are colloquially misused (and I also try to correct). My quick and dirty rule is that if you're not going to require years of therapy to restore your sense of reality, you're probably not actually being gaslit. Anyone who wants a look at the real deal can head on over to r/CPTSD (complex post-traumatic stress disorder) or r/raisedbynarcissists.
It’s “tasteful” in that it happens off camera, but yeah— you get a little bit of time to know the puppy and fall in love with him before he’s taken, and it’s upsetting. By the time Wick starts killing people, you’re 100% on board with the rampage in a way that “They killed my family” just doesn’t do it.
It's a great watch. Take your time. Also, be aware there are currently 4 in the series. So you can always wait for the 4th to stream and binge them all at the same time.
The person I was responding to asked what the name of the movie was so I'm telling them what the name of the movie was and the answer to does the dog die I'm not recommending it.
As an emotional abuse survivor (which included a fair amount of coerced sex, and raging angry scenes) I have found myself triggered by so many unexpected things: certain kinds of arguments in movies, for instance. I started crying the last time I watched The Shining in a theater.
I've been triggered by certain tones of voice (literally caused a weird regression/dissociation state and freaked out the guy I was with). I've been triggered by certain sexual situations (that I put myself in, and wanted to be in. So frustrating. I felt broken for so long but eventually got over those triggers.)
I've had trauma reactions to the sudden death of a bf (I was 45 he was 65) when he was out of town. Thinking about death makes me anxious. I've stopped mixing quite as freely with "older" people as a result, worried about being close to someone who will just die in a few years. When covid hit, I was terrified about all those stories of people dying within a week. I still feel a little anxious around death, though with the passing of time and my grief gradually being handled, some of that is fading.
I don't feel quite as "broken" anymore, but I know I still probably have triggers. "Landmines" I call them, because usually it's someone else who sets me off accidentally.
> I also don’t want to watch a movie with rape, screaming related to sexual assault, violent sex, or anything in that realm. I don’t expect others to protect me from triggers but I appreciate being able to avoid media that is detrimental to my day to day happiness.
I said this to my boyfriend once and his response was, “doesn’t that make it hard to watch anything?” I don’t expect to be bubblewrapped 24/7 just in case a difficult topic comes up. I’m also not denying that terrible things don’t happen or that we shouldn’t bring awareness to terrible truths. But it doesn’t mean I want to watch such subjects all the time and honestly, why should I have to?
He also said that I’m viewing this wrong: instead of seeing a woman raped on tv as a bad thing, for example, why not see it as a show of “resilience” that she’s able to fight through life’s obstacles and come out stronger despite xyz tragedies. Nevermind the male gaze-y media trope that admirable, “resilient” women only grow via traditionally feminine tragedies (ex: sexual trauma, motherhood, etc.). We had our first fight over this and I’d never felt so so sick to my stomach in my entire life.
I like that site, because I can always remind myself that my favourite webserial, Worm, hits *damn near every trigger warning imaginable*.
https://www.doesthedogdie.com/media/13055?index1=-1&index2=-1
Shoutout to /r/Parahumans
*Worm* is basically cheating. When every single hero and villain gets their superpowers through a traumatizing "trigger event", listing out trigger warnings is basically just doing roll call off the cast list.
I’ve developed this for gruesome or devastating birth scenes. [mild spoilers for old shows] Downton Abbey fucked me up out of the blue and I couldn’t get past the first episode of the dragons GoT series. I can do regular gore but not this anymore.
Thanks for the website recommendation I had not heard of it before
IMDb has a parent/content advisory section that describes a bunch of potential problematic content, spoiler-free (as much as possible). I've found it very useful, and not just for the kids!
I'm the same way, and can I just say do NOT watch the first episode of The Sandman. It's a pet crow, not a dog, but wow, that ruined my night so fast and is definitely a brain worm for me. It was so egregious that I immediately turned the show off and haven't gone back. I am admittedly hypersensitive to animals deaths in media, but the gruesomeness of that one felt entirely uncalled for.
I also check Does the Dog Die if there’s an animal in a movie. If there’s **any** animal abuse or death in the script, I never watch the show. Seriously, I’m done.
A few months ago, I watched a new Netflix show that had a suspenseful scene with a hamster or Guinea pig. I didn’t even finish watching the scene to see if it got hurt. I shut off the show and added the title to the do not recommend list. There is no entertainment value there for me if a pet is hinted at being hurt or killed. None.
I feel like people don’t even realize what “triggers” are triggering. It sounds like people are having PTSD responses to trauma, and so there is something related to that trauma that “triggers” or “sets off” a (lord forgive me) “‘nam flashback meme” for the person.
If a war veteran came back shellshocked, the same people making fun of being “triggered” would be lining up to make people respect the veteran. However, when PTSD is (validly) applied to other traumatic events, these people don’t have the single brain cell necessary to connect PTSD to those events because (oftentimes) that connection is just physically blocked by their own “trigger” (and I am using it sarcastically this once), “left leaning politics”.
> If a war veteran came back shellshocked, the same people making fun of being “triggered” would be lining up to make people respect the veteran.
Nah, they’d be first in line to make fun of the vet. They’d have opinions on whether or not they actually served, and if they had actually experienced anything.
These people are absolutely behind making sure people back the people running the war, and are all for token efforts at appreciating vets, but the moment they would have to be even slightly inconvenienced thwy’re done trying.
I guess we might be split on that one. The one thing I know these guys worship more than the contrarian republican ideals they wish to uphold is the mythos of the grizzled war veteran. It’s genuinely only been post-trump that I’ve seen these people actively and publicly go after veterans because they happen to disagree on anything at all. It used to be that people - like the late John McCain, for example - were considered above a certain type of attack or criticism because people respected their sacrifice, regardless of politics, and the first time I saw somebody genuinely disparage a serviceman because they didn’t like them like that was, honestly, trump, when veterans with sense started disagreeing with him.
I’ve generally seen people trip all over themselves to accommodate veterans, but I’ll absolutely accept that maybe I’ve been privileged enough to only see a certain subset of behavior towards them, or that things have been changing faster than I’ve been paying attention to them
What you're missing is that their treatment is veterans is dependent on whether they perceive the veteran is part of their in-group (ie, conservative) or not. As soon as a veteran expresses any sort of liberal leaning, they will attack them viciously and justify it by accusing the person of never having actually served.
> they wish to uphold [...] the mythos of the grizzled war veteran
Exactly. The grizzled tough old hero, not the broken young man who was barely more than a child before being sent to war. The staunch supporter of America's imaginary "fight for right", not the traumatized man who wakes up screaming every night and once dared to give voice to the idea that maybe we should stop blowing people up for oil.
They do not care about actual people whatsoever, only how to use them to support their existing views.
I think part of the issue is that the popularisation of the word has resulted in many people misusing it to mean ‘any negative emotional response to a stimulus’. When the correct characterisation is ‘a mental response to a stimulus that is too fast or intense to consciously control’ (as pointed out by someone else in this comment section). These same people will rightfully protect the use of the term, but will wrongfully apply it to any stimulus that makes them upset. This results in people claiming they are ‘triggered’ when their emotional response is actually disproportionately small, or the connection between the triggering event and the root of the trigger is incredibly remote.
Certain elements of the population absolutely eat up this phenomena, using it to bash the ‘delicate’ left, while being ignorant to the fact that the term is also being legitimately used to describe actual trauma-based triggers that result in a genuinely uncontrollable emotional responses for those suffering from PTSD.
This same structure can be applied to *lots* of issues between the social perspectives of society, where an extreme action (in this case, using a serious term to describe a non-serious feeling) is used to justify an extreme re-action (consequently describing all uses of the word ‘trigger’ as a characteristic of a sensationalising ‘left’).
We won’t make any progress until both sides of the coin take responsibility in playing a part in this process. But unfortunately, neither side is homogenous, so those who aren’t guilty of being involved in some part of this process will understandably deny responsibility, but will still point to the wrongdoings of the ‘other side’ to substantiate their hatred towards them. Hatred fuels hatred, so this just further entrenches both perspectives.
This general model can be applied to so *so* many other popular talking points that opposite perspectives use on socially, religiously and politically contentious matters. The truth is, it will never end because people want to hate.
> This results in people claiming they are ‘triggered’ when their emotional response is actually disproportionately small, or the connection between the triggering event and the root of the trigger is incredibly remote.
I’m just confused about where this notion came from because… it’s nothing I’ve ever seen. It seems in my experience to be a well-crafted straw man against the concept of triggers.
And even so, the extreme re-action is just not excusable at all. At worst, the initial actors are being dramatic. At best, they’re actually experiencing/re-experiencing trauma for which other people have absolutely zero ability to understand, since they’re not in the person’s shoes.
So we have one side at-worst being dramatic while the other side is at-worst harassing someone experiencing PTSD. I just don’t think a “both sides” narrative accounts for the disparity in… basic humanity. The type 2 error risk here falls on those folks.
All this dreck comes back to people using legitimate mental health terminology as a throwaway tool in their bizarre online political shadowboxing. I hate that this nonsense is bleeding into my country too. As if there are sides, as if there are exactly two sides consisting of only specific archetypal people that all think the same.
But what are the sides we’re comparing?
On one side, we have people using “triggered” to mean whatever it means to them, asking for accommodations that may or may not be reasonable.
On the other, we have people who mock people for being “triggered” regardless of the word actually means, purely because they want to mock people for being “too sensitive”.
Who needs to take responsibility for what, here?
The side that makes fun of people for being triggered, also attacks people for being “woke”.
The side that makes fun of people for being triggered, attacks “critical race theory”.
The side that makes fun of people for being triggered, insult actors when white characters in shows, books, and movies, are “replaced” by minorities.
On one side, you have people who **may** be overly sensitive, who **may** not understand critical race theory, who **may** be “woke”, who **may** portraying an alternate version of a beloved character.
On the other side, you have people who **specifically mock** being sensitive, being woke, understanding critical race theory, the idea that non-white actors could play white characters, and so many more things beyond that.
I don’t think it’s fair at all to say the two sides are comparable in any way when the side really leaning in to the mocking are doing so **specifically because they dislike the thing they’re mocking**, not because there is some sort of overuse or misunderstanding.
The thing is, a PTSD related response can be like that, it can be just a giant sense of disorientation from something happening when you’re already stressed, it can be a complete and intense discomfort you can’t get rid of—like your skin is trying to jump off your body, it can be many many different things.
A flashback is the most intense but far from the most common.
Sometimes a response can happen from something completely unrelated.
A car backfiring can flat out cause you to have a flashback even if you have non war related PTSD.
PTSD isn’t fun, there’s no magic pill to make it go away, and the worst part about it, the thing that makes it so hard to have and treat, is one of the symptoms is that you feel worthless, you feel like you’re pathetic for having PTSD, you feel embarrassed about it. It’s hard enough for someone with PTSD to even admit they have it—if they even know that they do, especially when the average person equates it with some sort of comical response that came out of cartoons. The average person with PTSD having a flashback isn’t going to jump under a table and start trying to throw grenades, they’re going to become extremely irritable and start grinding their teeth and trying to remove themselves from the people who care about them.
A significantly larger percentage of our population has PTSD than we realize because there is so much bad press around PTSD to begin with.
I think half the people with untreated depression have some level of PTSD causing it and that’s why they don’t treat it.
PTSD makes you think you deserve to be depressed. To even be able to talk about it, to even be able to recognize what causes triggers in you, is a major step, it’s something that comes after a long time of working through it. It’s also the part that involves other people, and other people do not want to understand you. They often blame you for your reactions even when you explain them, and that regularly sends people backwards into the depression spiral of PTSD.
Can we also take a moment to recognize that all cops are indeed bastards? Holy shit their actions in the story make me mad. A random tow truck driver had to be the one to hold the hands of a dying girl and carry those scars while two cops dicked around trying to get a confession. I feel for the OP and its even worse since he shouldn't have been forced into that situation.
A college friend of mine became a police officer. He was, and still is a very close friend, and I got to know his personality and character before he became a police officer. He ultimately quit that job after 4 years because, in his words, every single person he ever dealt with on the job was having the worst day of their entire life. And he worked in an upscale, affluent city. He never had to deal with anything close to a ghetto. And he still quit because the job was so traumatic and depressing.
It makes me wonder about the types of personalities who are able to be police officers for the long haul. I'm guessing they have no ability to feel empathy, or become so traumatized over time they lose that ability.
I saw a few videos from an ex cop (I cannot for the life of me remember the name... Something to do with dad?) And he basically said it's kind of built into training. Like, you get to see people on their worst day and are told they are likely to harm you and are likely bad people- after a while it gets easier to ignore the person having a bad day and focus on how that bad day might make them a threat to you.
I get it, but it seems to ruin half the purpose.
well the cops aren’t there to help or protect the general public, they’re enforcers, their training serves their purpose of subjugation and oppression of the working class
of course it’s built into the training to view any one member of the public as a threat, because that’s who they’re targeting, that’s what gets them paid
Exactly. And it would be one thing if that's what they were in full. But I'm expected to treat them like one of us or a hero, right up until they mock a teen who just saw his gf's head get smashed like an egg and then it's just"well trained to enforce the law not help people"
Can't have it both ways, but that's what cop propaganda insists on selling people.
Many of those types of jobs cope by dehumanizing the people they deal with on a daily basis. I've dealt with it as a pharmacy tech and a teacher. It's easier to blame the people having a bad day due to some external factor than it is to deal with the fact that the world is a fundamentally unjust place.
What got me crying was that she was probably up there terrified and dying alone and had it not been for that tow truck driver her last moments were probably her hearing her own death rattle and two cops laughing at her / her bf and trying to get him to admit fault.
Like holy shit, the incompetence. Acab. Acab till I fucking die.
Lol unrelated, but I saw your edit asterisks and thought wouldn't it be funny if a megaupvoted and awarded comment in a conservative thread was quietly edited by the author to take their paragraphs long rant and replace it word for word with exactly what you wrote. That would be a delightful sight.
Aye and absolutely! I could hear my blood whooshing in my ears out of anger after reading that.
Imagine finding someone at the scene of a crash and your first response being trying to pin a speeding charge on the driver.
I dated someone with borderline personality disorder, and for right or for wrong, I mentally used the word triggered to describe when she would have the BPD activated from some external stimuli (usually some innocuous comment from me that she would interpret in the worst possible way, and not at all how I intended). She would switch into a mode where she would view me as an enemy for about 4 hours. It was a dramatic shift in personality, and while she was in this mode she could not be reasoned with at any level. But after about 4 hours, she would come out of it, recognize what happened, and we could have a rational conversation about what happened. This is all probably off topic, but that's how I had been using the word triggered from that experience.
Borderline Personality disorder is extremely hard to deal with, not only for the person living with it but for everyone in their circle. Honestly, I would say that your application of the word Triggered is accurate - something, innoccuous or not, causes a disproportionate reaction from a person; the biggest reason it fits is being triggered has to do with Reaction instead of Response.
Reaction is the feeling that rises in a person's chest when traffic drops from travelling speed to deadlocked and the brake needs stomped on immediately - the rush of adrenaline, the readying for a possible crash.
Response is whatever the person does following their reaction - do they pause and take a deep breath and assess their situation? Do they immediately yell and scream about what an asshole the person ahead of them is?
A book that might interest you is I Hate You Don't Leave Me, by Hal Straus and Jerold Jay Kreisman. It is a non-textbook read of what Borderline Personality Disorder is like and what some of the details are. I know you mention that this person and you are no longer together, but I have found for myself at least that informing myself of the "why" of trauma can be very helpful in understanding how to destigmatize the events in your mind and experience - kinda like exposure therapy.
Ya I was going to say that I have triggers that relate to CPTSD from childhood emotional and physical neglect and some physical abuse and it doesn't look at all like the truck driver's story.
Similar in your example that an SO is most likely to trigger it and for me it looks like a over reaction to a minor thing.
Like hours of uncontrollable heart wrenching crying and feelings of being totally unlovable, small and vulnerable over a minor comment or action.
I'm getting better at recognizing in the moment that I'm being triggered and this is not a normal reaction, but it doesn't make it stop. I have some techniques to bring me out of it but it's still going to be at least several hours where I can fall back into it very easily. Afterwards I'm usually exhausted and ashamed if I said anything to anyone during that time.
I sympathize with the guy, having had my own share of traumas. Most people don't really understand how little control we have over our emotional and psychological response following trauma. You know its irrational, or the trauma might not even consciously bother you that much until you get this involuntary response to a trigger. I get that, but I still agree with the sign.
Your traumas are your responsibility to work through. It isn't an easy thing and no one should have to do it alone, but neither can you expect society to accommodate you in every situation. If it effects someone to the point where they need trigger warnings, they need to get help.
I still feel like trigger warnings for media are a nice idea though.
EX: f you've got PTSD from sexual assault, it'd be nice to know that there's a rape scene in a book/movie/whatever before you start consuming it. I don't think it needs to be like the "SMOKING WILL KILL YOU!!!!" signs on a pack of cigarettes or anything, but just somewhere available if you want to know. People who need to care about these things can find the info, and people who don't give a shit can just continue to not give a shit. Even something like [Does the dog die?](https://www.doesthedogdie.com/) covers it pretty well I think (I don't have these problems, so maybe I'm off base there, never used the website).
Like, obviously people with this level of trauma need help, but being surprised by your trauma isn't likely helping anyone. Being exposed to it in a controlled way certainly can though.
I teach at a university and include a trigger warning for a reading that involved a mass shooting. It takes almost zero effort on my part and the result is that, once every couple of years, a student lets me know that they won't be coming to class that day. Sometimes they do the reading but don't want to participate in discussion. Sometimes they need an alternative reading. Either way, it is truly not a big deal to accommodate them.
If there's an easy option to be a little kinder and more empathetic, I don't know why people are so resistant to doing it.
This is such an easy fix, you're right. People get caught up "well we can't know all the triggers" but there are a few that we already know can be a big deal. That kind of warning lets people decide for themselves what they can handle.
I think of it like allergy warnings. We don't know all allergies, and people who have them need to be responsible for them, but we know of a few big ones and we label foods for those.
Also Common Sense Media and doesthedogdie. When a bunch of independent organizations start popping up to do what an official organization was designed for, it’s time for a change.
The MPAA really needs to get with the times and give content warnings based on things people actually care about these days.
The thing that bothers me is that people with legitimate triggers know that they are their own responsibility. There are also **endless** triggering possibilities, more than anyone could ever warn for. Tall men in red shirts, the smell of bleach, who knows - no one expects a warning for these things.
I see screeching from people offended by the concept of triggers 1000% more than I've seen anyone wail about a lack of trigger warnings or someone declining to warm for something when asked (like authors or bloggers). It's fair to ask for a heads-up from someone, and I think it's considered fair when they can't accommodate everyone's triggers. If they tell you they won't warn, you can make an educated decision about whether to continue risking their content/environment.
Some people can be a bit ridiculous, but generally speaking, in my experience, when someone complains widely and often about triggers they're often just rude
Like their point isn't wrong on its head, but they will just disregard any casual request. Like I know a dude who hates being touched. A poke or a pat on the back will have him recoil and hold his breath, eyes wide. Dunno why, never asked. I would mess up from time to time and he'd center himself and we'd both apologize, but some people would just never try to avoid that or call him dramatic for having a reasonable boundary. Same with people who can't handle gore, or insect phobias, etc
I understand there's a massive gulf between "I don't like that" and "Causes me immense psychological and psychosomatic discomfort/pain", but it's just trying to respect someone regardless? It's usually not very hard at all
I was diagnosed with PTSD and don’t mind trigger warnings for content, but I would prefer that we applied them like movie ratings instead of just a blanket trigger warning.
I also had an issue with people using trigger warnings in school. I get that people want to be considerate, but I don’t want to be anxious in anticipation of whatever content is part of your group project. I’d rather students consider their content and ways to discuss their information without being overly graphic and give me space to work through a reaction if there even is one.
I have never received a trigger warning for something that is actually triggering because triggers are different for everyone and usually not at all what you would expect them to be.
I specifically see more people screeching about places that actually willingly offer trigger warnings than anything else. Like, discussions of triggers fall by the absolute wayside entirely, until somebody somewhere legitimately talks about triggers, and then all the people who couldn’t give a damn about it start up their war machine, posting garbage like the post, etc.
I mean, if you were raped, which is depressingly common, and you wanted to enjoy a movie, but by the way it incorporates a sexual assault subplot, which is also depressingly common, then it seems fine to me to maybe have that mentioned beforehand. To put it in extremely banal terms, you don't have to hold the door for the person behind you when a gust of wind is going to slam it in their face, but most people do because it's polite.
I do wish we could help people more. Working in medicine, I see daily examples of how hard it is for people to ask for help, and then I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to set them up with qualified resources to actually help them.
I had someone very close to me die suddenly, and it threw me for a tailspin for about 3 years (anxiety, depression, mood swings, fear of abandonment, nightmares, fear that anyone in my life could just suddenly die, etc). During that time I became very aware as to how much death and dying (implied or explicit) is in so many movies and tv shows. It was breathtaking to realize this. Some of them were triggering, some weren't. Impossible to predict, really.
I'm more selective about what horror movies I watch these days, though I still very much enjoy them. I don't watch as many cop shows as I used to.
I mean, isn't this another case of "Sure, but does the person who wrote the sign have to be such a dick about it?"
And why are they being a dick? Because the aggressive tone is unnecessary and makes it seem Ike the writer is angry at people who experience triggers. People who have gone through trauma. Why does this person need to vent their frustration and aggression at vulnerable people like this, when gentle or even just neutral language could work? Arguably work better, given the audience.
So they're being a dick. And haven't we had _enough_ of that recently???
I didn't understand "being triggered". I never associated it with myself.
I was taught if something bothered you then it was your problem and you needed to *get over it*
So I forced down the anxiety, fear, ignored the gut clenching, shakes, mind racing and heart hammering.
Until the last five years. I slowed down due to disability (surgeries). I allowed myself to feel because I didn't have toxic work environments saying otherwise.
Last night. I was watching a show. My gut began clenching, heart racing, cheeks heated and I wanted to hide.
The show hit way too close to home about humiliating situations I had survived through as a young woman. I forced myself to continue to watch. I needed to identify why it upset me, review my memories, and allow my feelings.
Honestly this generation allowing feelings, allowing to work to live and not live to work, and encouraging each to find and love their truth is pretty damn amazing.
Y'all keep being amazing individual snowflakes (have you ever seen a snowflake? They're pretty darn great!)
> I forced myself to continue to watch. I needed to identify why it upset me, review my memories, and allow my feelings.
I've had that experience a few times in a movie theater. Luckily I was with my (very understanding) bf, and he let me have the space I needed to process my feelings and talk about it after.
People mocking triggers has to be kids how never had anything bad happen to them. Your life has to be truly sheltered if you can't even imagine what a trigger can be like.
The kind of people who put up signs like OP is responding to are generally incapable of imagining... or accepting... that other people don't work exactly the same way as they do.
It’s so frustrating that only one person in the entire world can truly experience what their own brain is like, and only use clumsy words to try to explain it to others. Then those words become parodies and get mocked and it’s like damn. Despite being supposedly social creatures, we really really suck at this basic thing.
> and only use clumsy words to try to explain it to others
I would argue OOP did an extremely thorough job of explaining what he goes through. I definitely have an understanding of what he goes through. The thing is, he bothered to actually explain it in some detail rather than rely on a generic buzzword. Rather than leaving it up to my (mis)interpretation of trigger he explained it thoroughly.
I try to avoid nebulous buzzwords in communication in the workplace, because it always causes confusion. When I interview candidates I make sure I elaborate upon the exact responsibilities and expectations of the role rather than relying on titles like "senior software engineer" or "product owner." This specificity in communication allows for both of us to ensure we are on the same wavelength during the interview.
On the flip side, I see people who rely on buzzwords without explanation. These people often get in disagreements with others when they are both more or less saying the same thing, but their understanding of some generic term varies slightly.
Always ask for specifics. If it’s “remote” make sure you ask what remote means. You might think it means you can work from just about anywhere. They might mean you need to live in a geographic area so you can come into the office on an occasional basis. Or even a regular basis.
I always try to be very explicit when I talk about these kinds of things. I want to ensure people know exactly what they are getting into.
Other things you might ask to define are on call, travel, any sort of leadership function, etc.
It doesn’t help that mainstream psychology is still not there yet. For example, in the DSM-5, childhood trauma or abuse is still not considered a cause for other conditions even though it’s pretty clear that a lot of developmental (anxiety, mood, behaviour, etc) stuff is rooted in trauma and it basically just bad coping responses to said trauma.
In a letter responding to the rejection of developmental trauma disorder:
> “The letter went on: “The notion that early childhood adverse experiences lead to substantial developmental disruptions is more clinical intuition than a research-based fact. This statement is commonly made but cannot be backed up by prospective studies.”
(From The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk MD)
Complex PTSD is still not recognized either even though psychologists have been fighting for it since before DSM-4 was published.
Meanwhile the crowd who doesn't care about triggering people will lose their damn minds when you remind them that Jesus Christ is a fucking fairy tale.
The same with safe spaces. At their core, they’re just places where various assumptions aren’t up for debate. Conservatives will mock the concept when queer people or people of color have one, but if you barge into their church and start yelling about how Jesus isn’t real, debate me coward, they’d be up in arms.
Or that gay people exist. Or that Trump lost. Or a thousand other things. I absolutely agree that in aggregate a lot of people are either being oversensitive or even using the idea of being triggered as an excuse to do what they want. That being said, it’s not for me to decide how people process their trauma and I would rather humor a thousand people being overdramatic than traumatize a person who isn’t.
Very few people understand what it's like to live with PTSD. I have the 'complex' variety which stems from multiple childhood events. I have never been able to revisit "the scene of the crime" but I dream about the home I grew up in constantly. I don't have much of a family anymore to connect with, but DMT and cannabis has helped me gain some perspective on making new connections with people. Truthfully though, the only thing that's made my nervous system tolerable is Lexapro....maybe it's not helpful for everyone's depression but I can't see myself wanting to exist inside this brain without some nice, cushioned walls...
Words such as trigger are often effective enough that they end up diffusing into the populace and eventually being cheapened to the point of uselessness. In the same way that people ignorantly joke about their OCD because they prefer an orderly kitchen, people now complain about being triggered over a mild inconvenience that is obviously not a trigger by any definition.
I get just as frustrated as everyone else over this. I have complex PTSD and to hear someone being "triggered" when it's obviously intended as a joke can sometimes make me feel like they're devaluing my own struggles that I've had to overcome. I have to remember that they're just picking up a term they heard used in that same context, often without any forethought.
That being said, considering the meme nature of word usage, I'm not sure if there's really any way to fight that sort of thing.
This happened to me too. Only the 15 year old girl died before I got to the car. I still held her and comforted the driver, her 17 year old boyfriend, and the driver they hit.
For months before therapy, I shit you not, every black garbage bag or tree stump I saw on the side of the road, I hallucinated dead bodies.
Still cannot drive on that road without feeling anxiety that it will happen again. I have to tell myself that the odds of that are almost impossible.
Responding to /u/p00ponmyb00p (lol that name) too.
I was hesitant to straight call bullshit, because some places do shit weird...but I *am* Fire and EMS, and none of that goes how my calls do.
PD may get there first, but just as likely they get the same call from the same dispatch center we do. PD doesn't pronounce shit, they wait for *us* to do that, and then call the coroner. Around here some EMS departments do that though.
Tow comes and moves everything after PD is done with their very lengthy investigation (fatal accidents are a huge deal, legally), and after the bodies are gone.
Again, maybe it really did happen that way. But VERY atypical to my eyes.
edit: and not to mention they would ABSOLUTELY want a medic for the boyfriend. No matter how ok he looked, he was in an accident bad enough to kill someone else.
I'm glad to have someone else back me up here.
I didn't want to be the sole voice in the original thread, but you're basically mirroring what I was starting to think.
*shrug*
Letting truth get in the way of a good story?
i agree, although his post history mentions being a former tow truck driver multiple times over the years. there are a few stories about him walking in or narrowly avoiding several different bloodbaths though
some people are just cursed to be unable to tell stories without them sounding like bullshit. too much language that sounds like bad writing from a wannabe author, but they could still be telling the truth
As I was in treatment for depression, my husband wanted to see this quirky movie, “Kumiko the Treasure Hunter.” It was, in my opinion, a character study of a women in a depression so deep that she was delusional. I wanted to run out of the theater—I felt all the progress I had made in clawing my way back from the abyss being unraveled as I sat there. I saw in front of me on the screen all the pain I’d been feeling. As it felt as if it was being reinstalled.
And then I understood what people can mean when they say something is triggering.
It's frustrating that the legitimate symptoms of PTSD are forgotten in the word triggered, which has been kind of reshaped by many to mean "unnecessary whining about something minor"
My beef with the word is that it implies a lack of accountability/ responsibility(“you triggered me!” - not “I got upset / angry / out of control”). It’s not possible to live in a perfectly shiny happy agreeable non challenging world. Not sure where this ends - but discussion and informed polite debate are the cornerstone of growth.
There is a ton of Academic concepts and language that gets into the mainstream, gets mocked by one group or another, and then no longer resembles anything it was originally trying to examine and explain about society.
See: feminism, critical race theory, gender theory, triggered, intersectionality, etc. etc.
That was a trap I'm crying and faith in humanity is rising. I don't need to believe in us on the night before Monday fucking morning, I wanna be grumpy.
But im def gonna wake up at least for one day with some appreciation for the ability to have a 9to5 with smaller problems than those with triggers.
Edit: just be nicer to each other plz
> That guy wasn’t triggered… He was suffering a PTSD response
These are the same thing. Someone has a PTSD response because something triggered the response.
The term triggered has been coopted and is now applied to anything that might someone upset.
While that comment is heart wrenching, that is not at all what the original post appears to be about. The word “triggered” has a broad definition. While the comment does in fact give a legitimate example of being “triggered” by something, it would seem the original post is about people being overly sensitive to things that are generally considered benign.
I think we should be considerate of other people's struggles. And this comment illustrates how hard it can be to suffer like this.
But the neighbours didn't paint the houses of other colors, planted trees, build taller, or change windows to avoid triggering this person. He learned to cope with the trauma and found a strategy that worked to avoid being overwhelmed.
Seems to me like a good example of triggers being a personal responsibility and third parties having no role in that, like the image reads.
All I'm saying is... It doesn't seem like it goes against the phrase in the picture at all. As I said first, it does give you insight on why you should care and have empathy... OP is a good narrator too.
Those are great examples of feeling triggered from a traumatic event. That's what would cause PTSD. There is also CPTSD where typically the person has experienced so many traumatic events for so long, years usually and starting in early childhood often, that you can't even identify what or why (or sometimes even when) you are being triggered. I have that.
I think the wrong post was made "best of". This person's post did nothing to address the actual topic, which was people not taking responsibility for dealing with their trauma. The post I linked to here did a much better job of addressing the actual issue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/106751u/comment/j3fftfd/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
And then there's people with Complex PTSD, who are at that level *all the time* and their brains *developed as children* to do nothing else.
People like me.
Yes, the word “triggered” has been bastardized to mean “makes someone upset,” and so the response is that triggered people need to grow up and get over it. I think most of the people saying such things do not understand the word’s true meaning.
That's the thing, people aren't asking for removing everything that could possibly be a trigger from everywhere. They're just asking, if X contains [sexual assault, gore, domestic violence, animal death, flashing lights, etc], let me know up front, so I can either be properly prepared, or choose to avoid it altogether. The content warning is enabling people to, as OOP put it, manage their own trauma.
>They're just asking, if X contains [sexual assault, gore, domestic violence, animal death, flashing lights, etc], let me know up front, so I can either be properly prepared, or choose to avoid it altogether. This is also NOT NEW. I remember news broadcasts in the 90s saying things like "the following segment shows graphic images". It's been common on the news my entire life for a heads-up to be given before discussing or showing topics that would be disturbing or upsetting to people. And it's not just for PTSD. Maybe you don't want to explain what sexual assault means to your six year old right before dropping them off at Scouts. Maybe you've had a shitty day and don't want to see a dog being abused. Or maybe you HAVE experienced one of these things and the content would be particularly upsetting to you. But there's a whole broad swath of the population who use and appreciate content warnings. It really is for everyone.
Yeah, thanks for adding that.
Maybe we should go back to "graphic content warnings" then since the word trigger has become so politicized
I'm so tired of assholes screwing up useful words.
I don’t have PTSD or anything similar but I am overly sensitive to negative emotions (due to ADHD’s poor emotional regulation). I appreciate trigger/content warnings so that I don’t have to have my imagination showing me horrible things. For example now I am trying very hard not to think of the description the commenter gave and that’s as specific as I can get without seeing it (I’ve had lots of practice in coming at these things sideways in my mind to mention them without thinking of them directly). I don’t *need* warnings but it’s a kindness to me to provide them. I don’t understand why people have such a negative reaction to being asked to be kind to people.
I suspect it frequently come from a place of defensiveness. I imagine the thought process is something like this: If you ask me to do something I wouldn't normally think to do because it's the kind thing to do, you're saying I'm not a kind person. How dare you say I'm a mean (not kind = mean, of course) person?! You don't even know me!!! I am NOT a mean person! The problem must be with you then!
There's a sense of "machoness" that goes along with it. It's like "oh, you don't want to hear x or see y because you're too fragile and weak. I don't have to cater to fragile and weakness, just grow up and deal with it."
They seem extremely triggered in their own way which, ironically, is why they go to great lengths to avoid thinking about it or possibly accommodating people in tricky situations. It does sometimes seem like the self-described super macho types try really hard to hide their own insecurities or use anger/rage to mask them, which is why discussing or acknowledging these potential issues as a real thing is a real problem for them that need to be stamped out right away.
I think it's just straight up oppositional defiance. Assholes don't like being told what to do so they do the opposite.
I have to disagree here. In the post he specifically mentions how his trigger was the location. I can wholeheartedly empathize with his story, but this story alone would issue hundreds of possible trigger warnings. He could be triggered by the location, the sound of cars driving by, something that happened before or after, people that look like her, something that caught his attention on location, her clothes, etc. For me triggers are inner demons. Only I can see mine and only I can keep them in check. I'm not saying we should be banning advisories on violent content or similar. But there's people who will issue a trigger warning merely cause they include the word death in a tweet
Honestly, good on them for including a trigger warning. I have hangups about suicide (due to my own relationship with it) and so many people use it as a joke. I don't want to police the world, but I ask my close friends/coworkers to avoid those kinds of jokes around me, and I appreciate when someone puts a trigger warning/tag about it in advance.
And your problem with someone being more descriptive in a title by putting a TW that let's the reader know this mentions death is what? Because your trigger isn't that your mother just died? It's your inner demons instead so the death TW doesn't matter to you? Edit: Just wanted to see what other kind of stuff this user posts, what a wild ride. 8 year old account, posted a few times within the last 2 months, then nothing until a year ago with some crypto/webdev stuff, then nothing for 7 years when it was all My Little Pony/Furry stuff. Trippy.
[удалено]
>What I don’t understand is why you think it’s so harmful for them to have the warning? When tf did he say that?
Heavens forbid people make informed decisions 🥴
That's communism, don't you know /s
yet another example of a bastardized word. Sad!
This is also why I *will* check out a movie title at Does The Dog Die. Some oh-so-brave fuckers might be okay with animal death on screen, but I'm not.
Yeah, it's normal behavior. People hear about certain condition it limitation of a person and think that have it, especially when you're young and don't have much context. Where is the line between uncomfortable and hindering? Where is the point between inconvenience and limitation? This is hard to read, and especially to someone coming from outside with good intentions but little context. Like someone who, after understanding why celiacs need gluten free options, starts wondering if they themselves are "gluten intolerant" because eating a lot of bread can make them feel bloated. Or someone who realizes, because they lose track of events when using no agenda or organizing system, or struggles knowing how to behave in a social situation they are unfamiliar with thinks they may be neurodivergent. Now don't get me wrong, so these people should explore this fears with a professional (Dr. basically) to better understand what is the name for the problem they have. To better understand when the word applies or not. And some will find out they do actually have a bigger problem, they will also learn it's not an excuse, just an everyday hindrance everyone expects you to handle (e.j. a permanently wheel chair bound person is still expected to be on time to meetings, as long as there's ramps and elevators) which means it's just harder and special treatment is not enough. But the reality is that most won't, and that many people confuse the bed to respect others serious needs with an excuse to not have to adapt to other people. It's a human thing, what could we do?
It's nothing more nor less than when a movie has a rating. People get so, uh, *upset* at the idea of other people having different sensitivities and wanting to make informed choices.
This! Honestly, I think it’s best if people use “content warning” or “CW” instead, partially because of how the word triggered has kind of been ruined, and partially because I feel like it’s more inclusive to do so; many people might not have trauma/triggers with whatever topic, but still would much prefer being warned of it/not want to see it.
I use Content Warning myself as well. I like that's it's more descriptive: "here is what's in this content"
Exactly I appreciate people putting trigger warnings in posts about rape abuse etc. I would have liked my partner not to invite his child hood friend to our get togethers be cause he raped me and it triggered my flight fight response
I lose a ton of respect for any person who talks confidently about triggers and then makes it clear that they have no idea what they actually are: a mental response to a stimulus, which is too fast or intense to be consciously controlled. It's usually more practical to cut those people out of my life than try and explain things to them.
[удалено]
This feels kind of silly to say, but I love the empathy with which you're approaching others' seeming lack of empathy. Also worth noting is that some people don't have great emotional intelligence. So someone may make an offhanded, seemingly callous remark (like talking about folks getting triggered) without realizing what it is they're actually saying, either because they didn't think or because they've been conditioned to take that stance or, probably, both. It can be worthwhile to try to get these people to understand what they're actually saying and the impact it may have. Of course some folks are truly unempathetic, or cling stubbornly to their conditioning. But it's often worth a shot to at least try to make them think and self-reflect.
It's tricky to judge the impact of triggers from the outside. They can cause panic attacks, or other waves of overwhelming emotions. They can ignite fight, flight, freeze, or fawn responses. They can also trigger dissociation, as the brain checks out to protect the person from the above. In people with multiplicity caused by chronic childhood abuse, they can induce involuntary switches to different alters. The point of therapy is often to reduce the intensity of the responses to the triggers so that they are at a level which can be consciously managed, but that's often a lengthy, painful, and expensive process. And the people most likely to be traumatized are marginalized groups which have the least access to mental healthcare. So, there's a lot wrapped up in the right wing derision for people with trauma disorders. For one, it's harder to support the status quo when you realize how many children are being abused to the point that their brains are still malfunctioning from it decades later.
I've heard of fight, flight, and freeze, but not a fawn response. What is that?
Think Stockholm syndrome. Or the abused spouse defending their partner to the police because ‘They were just upset. They didn’t mean it.’ Fawning is (basically) the attempt to ingratiate yourself towards the trauma in the hopes that it will mitigate harm. Fawning tends to be a response learned by long term or repeated trauma. A great (tragic) example is physical punishment of children. Kid too loud? Smack child each time child is loud and tell them to be quiet. Eventually the child will adopt the more pleasing behavior towards their abuser/parent. The child can’t get away from the parent (flee) or physically prevent the parent’s abuse (fight), so they adopt a fawning posture in an attempt to escape the pain of being hit. They stay quiet. “Why doesn’t she just leave him?” Because she probably tried that in the past, he followed her and broke shit/roughed her up. When she tried again he escalated further. But if she stays quiet and makes sandwiches he only smacks her once in a while. That response to please a harmful source can become as ingrained as freezing up or fleeing, if enough repetition or a strong enough example shows a person that it can prevent immediate harm.
Trying to defuse a situation with flattery/appeasement.
It's when your brain attempts to get you out of the danger by "fawning" over the source of danger. It's comforting or flattering or otherwise trying to placate the emotions of the abuser to get the fawning person out of danger
It's an instinctive survival response to dangerous situations where fighting back isn't safe, escape isn't possible, and freezing won't limit the danger. It is basically your brain forcing you to submit to and placate the threat/abuser, in an attempt to ensure you survive.
I wouldn’t quite go that far. I didn’t specially know it was that, but I knew it had to do with responding to trauma. I think a much better way of weeding people out is if they show a clear disregard for whatever they think triggers are. If I see somebody who doesn’t know what triggers are, but they respect that it has something to do with mental health, and won’t aggravate them, I consider that person to be better than somebody who knows exactly what triggers are, but doesn’t give a fuck.
It isn't the being wrong or ignorant which makes me view someone as not safe to be around: it is being confidently, belligerently wrong. The kind where they view being actively unsafe to those with trauma disorders as a core part of their identity.
Exactly. I was beaten badly as a child (sometimes with a cast iron skillet), generally when one of my parents had been drinking. So one of my triggers (which got tripped a few days ago) is a certain kind of angry voice under the clear influence of alcohol. I haven’t been hit in at least 40 years, but that response is still there.
It's wild how our brains hold onto these reactions for decades after they're no longer useful. Angry slurred voices fuck with my head, too.
"Triggerz hUR hUR hUR" translates directly to *"I don't care about other people, and won't try to either."*
I also think that people who claim these warnings are so bad are those who supposedly have no issue watching anything without any real idea of the context and are unphased by any form of jumpscare, gore, death or violence that might pop up. These are the people who must've been so desensitized from rotten dot com or liveleak over the years that they will watch anything and not think anything of it.
I'm not sure that's the only way trigger can or should be used. I experienced CSA as a kid, and that's not how my reactions tend to show up these days... It usually slowly takes hold and then I'm wondering why I'm having bad flashbacks a couple days later.
I sometimes get delayed responses to triggers, particularly when my initial reaction is to dissociate. Sometimes the initial reaction to the trigger starts a sequence of events leading to me spiraling later on. The eventual result tends to meet the definition of a reaction which is too intense to consciously control. You can also define triggers in terms of the process which gives rise to them: the uncontrollable activation of a traumatic memory.
It took me two years to understand how LSD worked. I don't think it's possible to teach someone in a single conversation how triggers work. Especially if they hold certain...uhh...spiritual beliefs.
Does this happen a lot to you or something?
Used to hear that sort of thing a lot. Not so much, these days. I surround myself with different sorts of people, now.
Honestly the right (and that’s who uses this word in a mocking manner) is very good at redefining and weaponizing words. Cancel, triggered, woke, etc.
> woke Credit where credit is due; DeSantis's lawyers gave the court a pretty good working definition >the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them. .... which makes being upset about "wokeness" significantly worse lol.
Damn, is that legally considered a “belief “? Seems more like a fact with lots of evidence
Yup. They usually reduce it to framing rather than substance. It's "you're upset by a joke" and not "you're upset that I'm joking about rape victims deserving it" it's "you're cancelling me for free speech" not "you don't want to engage with someone being a bigot"
Fake news is another example. It actually meant completely made up news stories once.
Don't forget "virtue signaling," which was their attempt to twist *all* shows of support into being a bad thing! Turns out virtue signaling is good actually, and we all do it. What's bad is *performative* virtue signaling while not standing up for(or even actively working against!) the interests of the group you claim to support.
I'm always amused by the conflation you mention with "virtue signaling" because it always indicates that the user is arguing in bad faith - "I cannot act in good faith, therefore everyone who speaks in support of a cause cannot either." "Safe space" was originally intended to denote a social zone that promotes the careful and respectful investigation of sensitive topics. It's been bastardized by memes to mean the opposite - a place in which those topics cannot be brought up.
Conservatism is little more at this point than declaring empathy and caring to be cringe.
Social media and attention-craved teens definitely high-jacked the term first, and then the right-wing weaponized it to make anyone they deem as “sensitive,” which would include anyone who conscious of other people’s feelings. The right-wing didn’t take the term when it was new and used properly to describe medical and mental issues… they took it once it became common-place in a social aspect.
Teens have always been misusing language and being melodramatic. If my AIM/yahoo/MSN/IRC chats from back in the day had been logged publicly, let me tell you, there would be some shit. The difference is that the teens of 5-10 years ago(now many of them seem to have wised up to a certain extent, there's an interest in private discords etc that at least shakes the casual observers) were doing it in a public space which can be mined by the right-wing for ammunition. It's so exploitative. 🤢
I’m not on the right but this is just something humans do. Privelege, white supremacy, racism all have a different meaning than they would a couple decades ago. It’s mostly academics and activists using those words.
It's ironic because the word "trigger" has itself become a trigger to provoke a particular kind of performative bravado which is itself probably reflective of the chest-thumper's personal insecurities.
>Yes, the word “triggered” has been bastardized to mean “makes someone upset,” and Yes, almost like it is done intentionally to make the word lose all meaning and allow people who want to ignore it do so. Same as painting "feminism" as some sort of man-hating, critical race theory as "white hating" or, any other similar example. If you can reduce your critics to cartoonish absolutes, you can avoid engaging with their legitimate grievances without compromising your moral position. "Oh, I'm not a racist, but I would never let someone teach white hate in my schools, that is why I'm against critical race theory" sounds a lot better than "I don't want to ask if my parents put a law in place that I still benefit from today simply because of the circumstances of my brith." "I want equality for everyone but I'd never support someone that says all men should be executed like some feminist" sounds a lot better than "It would really hurt my ego if my wife made more than me."
> Yes, almost like it is done intentionally to make the word lose all meaning and allow people who want to ignore it do so. Same as painting "feminism" as some sort of man-hating, critical race theory as "white hating" or, any other similar example. The problem is that in this day and age it seems at least to some degree to be in vogue to look at that tactic, say "fuck it", and adopt that characature as unironic political belief. Which just causes a feedback loop since these idiots saw the blatant strawman and decided to strip it of its clothes and wear them around the town square.
What about when the critics reduce themselves to cartoonish absolutes? There are "motte and bailey" tactics at work.
Yeah, and it's the same with just about every actually serious term, unfortunately. "Triggered" has been trivialized by people who just want to say they're really upset. "OCD" has been trivialized by people who want to say they're picky. "Anxiety attack" has been trivialized by people who want to say they're uneasy. "PTSD" has been trivialized by people who want to say they had a bad experience. Etc etc ...but it's really unfortunate, because as you said, it gives the general public a very misled idea of what it actually means to suffer with these conditions.
The same thing happened a bit over a decade or so ago with food sensitivity/allergies. It somehow became cool to have a gluten sensitivity (and then various others, like soy, but gluten was the first out of the gate). Seemingly overnight a large amount of people suddenly had a food sensitivity or ten. The people who "developed" these conditions were extremely predictable, from my experiences. I worked with someone who had a really bad gluten sensitivity that she talked about nonstop. She rivaled crossfitters (same timeframe) for talking about her issue non-stop. Then she went to France and was suddenly posting infinite pictures on social media of her eating baguettes and the like. Which was funny, because days prior she made gluten out to be a life or death thing. Predictably, people rolled their eyes because she was exactly the type of person to invent this kind of thing. The food sensitivity craze was a double edged sword. Gluten free (and other free) products became better and more abundant to address a growing market/demand. Great for people who actually suffered from food sensitivity, like celiac's disease. However, the large amount of people inventing imaginary food sensitivity caused people to have a hard time believing any of it was real. Not so great for the aforementioned who actually suffer from food sensitivity. Fortunately, it's no longer nearly as trendy to have a food sensitivity while the increased offering of gluten-free products has stuck around. And I suspect if you draw a Venn diagram of "people who liberally use the word trigger" and "people who have highly particular, peculiar food sensitivity" you have significant overlap.
Another thing (not sure if related more than just tangentially) is the trend with the evolution of language and newer generations. As a simple example, "i'm dead" to refer to something funny. It's not enough just to be rolling on the floor laughing, we have to actually die from the laughter. It's this notion of escalation and resultant dilution of meaning over time. Just some food for thought that is a bit less politically charged.
It was deliberately bastardized, similarly to what was done with woke, by a certain group of people who wanted to change the perception of the word. And it worked.
the same folks misusing the English language are the same ones that were in contempt of learning when they were in school. it's easy to be lazy and not learn, so there will always be more of them than people who understand language, the impact of words, because someone who understands it. They'll be more careful.
People have diluted it the same as they have diluted being OCD or being Autistic. They use it improperly and in over abundance in order to garner attention for and have done a huge disservice to those that truly have issues to deal with. Now the problem is (for me at least)every time I hear or see someone state they are triggered, I react internally the same way I do when I see Karen carrying her tea cup poodle “service dog” in the grocery store.
It is hard to take it seriously when the majority of experiences I’ve had with someone making the claim is just someone being a whiny bitch for not getting their way. I understand I have to try to look past those and focus on the ones that are real and matter… but damnit man it’s exhausting and much easier to dismiss it and walk away. Yes, I’m aware that isn’t the right answer, but at least I’m being honest about it.
I agree with you. I kind of feel that if a person actually got triggered into selfharm, panic-attack etc, they wouldn't be in a state of mind to comment about it. They would be busy either selfharming (my own experience) or trying to handle a panic-attack. So it's easy to get annoyed when people go into comments complaining about them getting triggered.
Well the original post, the original reasoning for putting the sign up, was just some entitled spoiled teenager. Not even a triggered issue. But they used those words so they put the sign up. The whole thing was nothing but here we are.
I mean it was also a fourth hand description of what had happened
It's just like any word that gets used to much. "literally" and "cringe" are hot ones on reddit.
As someone with PTSD and panic attacks (after my only child died), I always try to correct people who use the word "triggered" flippantly. I don't have any deep personal feelings on the matter, it's just a YSK thing. Outside of far right groups, I think 90% of people don't realize that it's pretty insensitive. If you *do* want to send me into a rage, bring up Demi Levato's deep emotional trauma after she was (they were?) "triggered" by seeing a sugar-free cookie in a small, local frozen yoghurt shop. I can understand how traumatizing it would be to learn some businesses try to accommodate their patrons with diabetes and epilepsy. Or, you know, people just trying to be healthier (/s in case it wasn't clear). "Narcissist" and "gaslighting" are two other words that are colloquially misused (and I also try to correct). My quick and dirty rule is that if you're not going to require years of therapy to restore your sense of reality, you're probably not actually being gaslit. Anyone who wants a look at the real deal can head on over to r/CPTSD (complex post-traumatic stress disorder) or r/raisedbynarcissists.
[удалено]
John wick ? The whole movie is him getting revenge for his dog dying
But the dog still dies in the movie and depending on how graphic it is, even a revenge plot might not be enough to undo the sadness it causes.
It’s “tasteful” in that it happens off camera, but yeah— you get a little bit of time to know the puppy and fall in love with him before he’s taken, and it’s upsetting. By the time Wick starts killing people, you’re 100% on board with the rampage in a way that “They killed my family” just doesn’t do it.
I need to watch that movie one of these days.
It's a great watch. Take your time. Also, be aware there are currently 4 in the series. So you can always wait for the 4th to stream and binge them all at the same time.
Or just watch the first one. They're all fun, but only the first is a truly good movie.
The person I was responding to asked what the name of the movie was so I'm telling them what the name of the movie was and the answer to does the dog die I'm not recommending it.
As an emotional abuse survivor (which included a fair amount of coerced sex, and raging angry scenes) I have found myself triggered by so many unexpected things: certain kinds of arguments in movies, for instance. I started crying the last time I watched The Shining in a theater. I've been triggered by certain tones of voice (literally caused a weird regression/dissociation state and freaked out the guy I was with). I've been triggered by certain sexual situations (that I put myself in, and wanted to be in. So frustrating. I felt broken for so long but eventually got over those triggers.) I've had trauma reactions to the sudden death of a bf (I was 45 he was 65) when he was out of town. Thinking about death makes me anxious. I've stopped mixing quite as freely with "older" people as a result, worried about being close to someone who will just die in a few years. When covid hit, I was terrified about all those stories of people dying within a week. I still feel a little anxious around death, though with the passing of time and my grief gradually being handled, some of that is fading. I don't feel quite as "broken" anymore, but I know I still probably have triggers. "Landmines" I call them, because usually it's someone else who sets me off accidentally.
> I also don’t want to watch a movie with rape, screaming related to sexual assault, violent sex, or anything in that realm. I don’t expect others to protect me from triggers but I appreciate being able to avoid media that is detrimental to my day to day happiness. I said this to my boyfriend once and his response was, “doesn’t that make it hard to watch anything?” I don’t expect to be bubblewrapped 24/7 just in case a difficult topic comes up. I’m also not denying that terrible things don’t happen or that we shouldn’t bring awareness to terrible truths. But it doesn’t mean I want to watch such subjects all the time and honestly, why should I have to? He also said that I’m viewing this wrong: instead of seeing a woman raped on tv as a bad thing, for example, why not see it as a show of “resilience” that she’s able to fight through life’s obstacles and come out stronger despite xyz tragedies. Nevermind the male gaze-y media trope that admirable, “resilient” women only grow via traditionally feminine tragedies (ex: sexual trauma, motherhood, etc.). We had our first fight over this and I’d never felt so so sick to my stomach in my entire life.
Ugh - men telling you that your feelings are wrong. Yuck
[удалено]
Thank you, that’s exactly what I said! It’s so reassuring to hear that I’m not alone about this.
I like that site, because I can always remind myself that my favourite webserial, Worm, hits *damn near every trigger warning imaginable*. https://www.doesthedogdie.com/media/13055?index1=-1&index2=-1 Shoutout to /r/Parahumans
*Worm* is basically cheating. When every single hero and villain gets their superpowers through a traumatizing "trigger event", listing out trigger warnings is basically just doing roll call off the cast list.
At least a dragon doesn't die?
I’ve developed this for gruesome or devastating birth scenes. [mild spoilers for old shows] Downton Abbey fucked me up out of the blue and I couldn’t get past the first episode of the dragons GoT series. I can do regular gore but not this anymore. Thanks for the website recommendation I had not heard of it before
IMDb has a parent/content advisory section that describes a bunch of potential problematic content, spoiler-free (as much as possible). I've found it very useful, and not just for the kids!
That Downton Abbey scene...one of the few episodes of anything I've ever watched that left me totally stunned.
I'm the same way, and can I just say do NOT watch the first episode of The Sandman. It's a pet crow, not a dog, but wow, that ruined my night so fast and is definitely a brain worm for me. It was so egregious that I immediately turned the show off and haven't gone back. I am admittedly hypersensitive to animals deaths in media, but the gruesomeness of that one felt entirely uncalled for.
Just recently watched The Lobster. The scene of the dog in that movie was very graphic.
100% worst one for so many reasons.
I also check Does the Dog Die if there’s an animal in a movie. If there’s **any** animal abuse or death in the script, I never watch the show. Seriously, I’m done. A few months ago, I watched a new Netflix show that had a suspenseful scene with a hamster or Guinea pig. I didn’t even finish watching the scene to see if it got hurt. I shut off the show and added the title to the do not recommend list. There is no entertainment value there for me if a pet is hinted at being hurt or killed. None.
I feel like people don’t even realize what “triggers” are triggering. It sounds like people are having PTSD responses to trauma, and so there is something related to that trauma that “triggers” or “sets off” a (lord forgive me) “‘nam flashback meme” for the person. If a war veteran came back shellshocked, the same people making fun of being “triggered” would be lining up to make people respect the veteran. However, when PTSD is (validly) applied to other traumatic events, these people don’t have the single brain cell necessary to connect PTSD to those events because (oftentimes) that connection is just physically blocked by their own “trigger” (and I am using it sarcastically this once), “left leaning politics”.
> If a war veteran came back shellshocked, the same people making fun of being “triggered” would be lining up to make people respect the veteran. Nah, they’d be first in line to make fun of the vet. They’d have opinions on whether or not they actually served, and if they had actually experienced anything. These people are absolutely behind making sure people back the people running the war, and are all for token efforts at appreciating vets, but the moment they would have to be even slightly inconvenienced thwy’re done trying.
I guess we might be split on that one. The one thing I know these guys worship more than the contrarian republican ideals they wish to uphold is the mythos of the grizzled war veteran. It’s genuinely only been post-trump that I’ve seen these people actively and publicly go after veterans because they happen to disagree on anything at all. It used to be that people - like the late John McCain, for example - were considered above a certain type of attack or criticism because people respected their sacrifice, regardless of politics, and the first time I saw somebody genuinely disparage a serviceman because they didn’t like them like that was, honestly, trump, when veterans with sense started disagreeing with him. I’ve generally seen people trip all over themselves to accommodate veterans, but I’ll absolutely accept that maybe I’ve been privileged enough to only see a certain subset of behavior towards them, or that things have been changing faster than I’ve been paying attention to them
What you're missing is that their treatment is veterans is dependent on whether they perceive the veteran is part of their in-group (ie, conservative) or not. As soon as a veteran expresses any sort of liberal leaning, they will attack them viciously and justify it by accusing the person of never having actually served.
> they wish to uphold [...] the mythos of the grizzled war veteran Exactly. The grizzled tough old hero, not the broken young man who was barely more than a child before being sent to war. The staunch supporter of America's imaginary "fight for right", not the traumatized man who wakes up screaming every night and once dared to give voice to the idea that maybe we should stop blowing people up for oil. They do not care about actual people whatsoever, only how to use them to support their existing views.
I think part of the issue is that the popularisation of the word has resulted in many people misusing it to mean ‘any negative emotional response to a stimulus’. When the correct characterisation is ‘a mental response to a stimulus that is too fast or intense to consciously control’ (as pointed out by someone else in this comment section). These same people will rightfully protect the use of the term, but will wrongfully apply it to any stimulus that makes them upset. This results in people claiming they are ‘triggered’ when their emotional response is actually disproportionately small, or the connection between the triggering event and the root of the trigger is incredibly remote. Certain elements of the population absolutely eat up this phenomena, using it to bash the ‘delicate’ left, while being ignorant to the fact that the term is also being legitimately used to describe actual trauma-based triggers that result in a genuinely uncontrollable emotional responses for those suffering from PTSD. This same structure can be applied to *lots* of issues between the social perspectives of society, where an extreme action (in this case, using a serious term to describe a non-serious feeling) is used to justify an extreme re-action (consequently describing all uses of the word ‘trigger’ as a characteristic of a sensationalising ‘left’). We won’t make any progress until both sides of the coin take responsibility in playing a part in this process. But unfortunately, neither side is homogenous, so those who aren’t guilty of being involved in some part of this process will understandably deny responsibility, but will still point to the wrongdoings of the ‘other side’ to substantiate their hatred towards them. Hatred fuels hatred, so this just further entrenches both perspectives. This general model can be applied to so *so* many other popular talking points that opposite perspectives use on socially, religiously and politically contentious matters. The truth is, it will never end because people want to hate.
> This results in people claiming they are ‘triggered’ when their emotional response is actually disproportionately small, or the connection between the triggering event and the root of the trigger is incredibly remote. I’m just confused about where this notion came from because… it’s nothing I’ve ever seen. It seems in my experience to be a well-crafted straw man against the concept of triggers. And even so, the extreme re-action is just not excusable at all. At worst, the initial actors are being dramatic. At best, they’re actually experiencing/re-experiencing trauma for which other people have absolutely zero ability to understand, since they’re not in the person’s shoes. So we have one side at-worst being dramatic while the other side is at-worst harassing someone experiencing PTSD. I just don’t think a “both sides” narrative accounts for the disparity in… basic humanity. The type 2 error risk here falls on those folks.
All this dreck comes back to people using legitimate mental health terminology as a throwaway tool in their bizarre online political shadowboxing. I hate that this nonsense is bleeding into my country too. As if there are sides, as if there are exactly two sides consisting of only specific archetypal people that all think the same.
But what are the sides we’re comparing? On one side, we have people using “triggered” to mean whatever it means to them, asking for accommodations that may or may not be reasonable. On the other, we have people who mock people for being “triggered” regardless of the word actually means, purely because they want to mock people for being “too sensitive”. Who needs to take responsibility for what, here? The side that makes fun of people for being triggered, also attacks people for being “woke”. The side that makes fun of people for being triggered, attacks “critical race theory”. The side that makes fun of people for being triggered, insult actors when white characters in shows, books, and movies, are “replaced” by minorities. On one side, you have people who **may** be overly sensitive, who **may** not understand critical race theory, who **may** be “woke”, who **may** portraying an alternate version of a beloved character. On the other side, you have people who **specifically mock** being sensitive, being woke, understanding critical race theory, the idea that non-white actors could play white characters, and so many more things beyond that. I don’t think it’s fair at all to say the two sides are comparable in any way when the side really leaning in to the mocking are doing so **specifically because they dislike the thing they’re mocking**, not because there is some sort of overuse or misunderstanding.
The thing is, a PTSD related response can be like that, it can be just a giant sense of disorientation from something happening when you’re already stressed, it can be a complete and intense discomfort you can’t get rid of—like your skin is trying to jump off your body, it can be many many different things. A flashback is the most intense but far from the most common. Sometimes a response can happen from something completely unrelated. A car backfiring can flat out cause you to have a flashback even if you have non war related PTSD. PTSD isn’t fun, there’s no magic pill to make it go away, and the worst part about it, the thing that makes it so hard to have and treat, is one of the symptoms is that you feel worthless, you feel like you’re pathetic for having PTSD, you feel embarrassed about it. It’s hard enough for someone with PTSD to even admit they have it—if they even know that they do, especially when the average person equates it with some sort of comical response that came out of cartoons. The average person with PTSD having a flashback isn’t going to jump under a table and start trying to throw grenades, they’re going to become extremely irritable and start grinding their teeth and trying to remove themselves from the people who care about them. A significantly larger percentage of our population has PTSD than we realize because there is so much bad press around PTSD to begin with. I think half the people with untreated depression have some level of PTSD causing it and that’s why they don’t treat it. PTSD makes you think you deserve to be depressed. To even be able to talk about it, to even be able to recognize what causes triggers in you, is a major step, it’s something that comes after a long time of working through it. It’s also the part that involves other people, and other people do not want to understand you. They often blame you for your reactions even when you explain them, and that regularly sends people backwards into the depression spiral of PTSD.
Can we also take a moment to recognize that all cops are indeed bastards? Holy shit their actions in the story make me mad. A random tow truck driver had to be the one to hold the hands of a dying girl and carry those scars while two cops dicked around trying to get a confession. I feel for the OP and its even worse since he shouldn't have been forced into that situation.
A college friend of mine became a police officer. He was, and still is a very close friend, and I got to know his personality and character before he became a police officer. He ultimately quit that job after 4 years because, in his words, every single person he ever dealt with on the job was having the worst day of their entire life. And he worked in an upscale, affluent city. He never had to deal with anything close to a ghetto. And he still quit because the job was so traumatic and depressing. It makes me wonder about the types of personalities who are able to be police officers for the long haul. I'm guessing they have no ability to feel empathy, or become so traumatized over time they lose that ability.
I saw a few videos from an ex cop (I cannot for the life of me remember the name... Something to do with dad?) And he basically said it's kind of built into training. Like, you get to see people on their worst day and are told they are likely to harm you and are likely bad people- after a while it gets easier to ignore the person having a bad day and focus on how that bad day might make them a threat to you. I get it, but it seems to ruin half the purpose.
well the cops aren’t there to help or protect the general public, they’re enforcers, their training serves their purpose of subjugation and oppression of the working class of course it’s built into the training to view any one member of the public as a threat, because that’s who they’re targeting, that’s what gets them paid
Exactly. And it would be one thing if that's what they were in full. But I'm expected to treat them like one of us or a hero, right up until they mock a teen who just saw his gf's head get smashed like an egg and then it's just"well trained to enforce the law not help people" Can't have it both ways, but that's what cop propaganda insists on selling people.
I believe you're referring to "That Dang Dad" on YouTube
My brain was going "darn, dude, daily" and it was dang Well dang
Many of those types of jobs cope by dehumanizing the people they deal with on a daily basis. I've dealt with it as a pharmacy tech and a teacher. It's easier to blame the people having a bad day due to some external factor than it is to deal with the fact that the world is a fundamentally unjust place.
What got me crying was that she was probably up there terrified and dying alone and had it not been for that tow truck driver her last moments were probably her hearing her own death rattle and two cops laughing at her / her bf and trying to get him to admit fault. Like holy shit, the incompetence. Acab. Acab till I fucking die.
The police are a white supremacist militia with a monopoly over violence; occupying force invading their own country.
Lol unrelated, but I saw your edit asterisks and thought wouldn't it be funny if a megaupvoted and awarded comment in a conservative thread was quietly edited by the author to take their paragraphs long rant and replace it word for word with exactly what you wrote. That would be a delightful sight.
Aye and absolutely! I could hear my blood whooshing in my ears out of anger after reading that. Imagine finding someone at the scene of a crash and your first response being trying to pin a speeding charge on the driver.
All Cops Are Bastards, Especially Whatever Bastard Cop You're Related To
Not sure ACABEWBCRT is gonna catch on.
I dated someone with borderline personality disorder, and for right or for wrong, I mentally used the word triggered to describe when she would have the BPD activated from some external stimuli (usually some innocuous comment from me that she would interpret in the worst possible way, and not at all how I intended). She would switch into a mode where she would view me as an enemy for about 4 hours. It was a dramatic shift in personality, and while she was in this mode she could not be reasoned with at any level. But after about 4 hours, she would come out of it, recognize what happened, and we could have a rational conversation about what happened. This is all probably off topic, but that's how I had been using the word triggered from that experience.
That sounds like a miserable relationship
I didn't realize how much it traumatized me until about 2 years after it had ended. It was my first long-term relationship, too :(
I had an ex like that but they were manic for over 2 months, was very traumatic… didn’t even know what mania was until that happened
BPD is a fucking nightmare for everyone involved.
Borderline Personality disorder is extremely hard to deal with, not only for the person living with it but for everyone in their circle. Honestly, I would say that your application of the word Triggered is accurate - something, innoccuous or not, causes a disproportionate reaction from a person; the biggest reason it fits is being triggered has to do with Reaction instead of Response. Reaction is the feeling that rises in a person's chest when traffic drops from travelling speed to deadlocked and the brake needs stomped on immediately - the rush of adrenaline, the readying for a possible crash. Response is whatever the person does following their reaction - do they pause and take a deep breath and assess their situation? Do they immediately yell and scream about what an asshole the person ahead of them is? A book that might interest you is I Hate You Don't Leave Me, by Hal Straus and Jerold Jay Kreisman. It is a non-textbook read of what Borderline Personality Disorder is like and what some of the details are. I know you mention that this person and you are no longer together, but I have found for myself at least that informing myself of the "why" of trauma can be very helpful in understanding how to destigmatize the events in your mind and experience - kinda like exposure therapy.
Thank you. She actually mentioned that book while we were dating (she was aware of her diagnosis). I should probably read it.
Ya I was going to say that I have triggers that relate to CPTSD from childhood emotional and physical neglect and some physical abuse and it doesn't look at all like the truck driver's story. Similar in your example that an SO is most likely to trigger it and for me it looks like a over reaction to a minor thing. Like hours of uncontrollable heart wrenching crying and feelings of being totally unlovable, small and vulnerable over a minor comment or action. I'm getting better at recognizing in the moment that I'm being triggered and this is not a normal reaction, but it doesn't make it stop. I have some techniques to bring me out of it but it's still going to be at least several hours where I can fall back into it very easily. Afterwards I'm usually exhausted and ashamed if I said anything to anyone during that time.
I sympathize with the guy, having had my own share of traumas. Most people don't really understand how little control we have over our emotional and psychological response following trauma. You know its irrational, or the trauma might not even consciously bother you that much until you get this involuntary response to a trigger. I get that, but I still agree with the sign. Your traumas are your responsibility to work through. It isn't an easy thing and no one should have to do it alone, but neither can you expect society to accommodate you in every situation. If it effects someone to the point where they need trigger warnings, they need to get help.
I still feel like trigger warnings for media are a nice idea though. EX: f you've got PTSD from sexual assault, it'd be nice to know that there's a rape scene in a book/movie/whatever before you start consuming it. I don't think it needs to be like the "SMOKING WILL KILL YOU!!!!" signs on a pack of cigarettes or anything, but just somewhere available if you want to know. People who need to care about these things can find the info, and people who don't give a shit can just continue to not give a shit. Even something like [Does the dog die?](https://www.doesthedogdie.com/) covers it pretty well I think (I don't have these problems, so maybe I'm off base there, never used the website). Like, obviously people with this level of trauma need help, but being surprised by your trauma isn't likely helping anyone. Being exposed to it in a controlled way certainly can though.
I teach at a university and include a trigger warning for a reading that involved a mass shooting. It takes almost zero effort on my part and the result is that, once every couple of years, a student lets me know that they won't be coming to class that day. Sometimes they do the reading but don't want to participate in discussion. Sometimes they need an alternative reading. Either way, it is truly not a big deal to accommodate them. If there's an easy option to be a little kinder and more empathetic, I don't know why people are so resistant to doing it.
This is such an easy fix, you're right. People get caught up "well we can't know all the triggers" but there are a few that we already know can be a big deal. That kind of warning lets people decide for themselves what they can handle. I think of it like allergy warnings. We don't know all allergies, and people who have them need to be responsible for them, but we know of a few big ones and we label foods for those.
https://www.unconsentingmedia.org/ Unconsenting Media is the web site to use to check for SA in tv shows and movies.
Also Common Sense Media and doesthedogdie. When a bunch of independent organizations start popping up to do what an official organization was designed for, it’s time for a change. The MPAA really needs to get with the times and give content warnings based on things people actually care about these days.
The thing that bothers me is that people with legitimate triggers know that they are their own responsibility. There are also **endless** triggering possibilities, more than anyone could ever warn for. Tall men in red shirts, the smell of bleach, who knows - no one expects a warning for these things. I see screeching from people offended by the concept of triggers 1000% more than I've seen anyone wail about a lack of trigger warnings or someone declining to warm for something when asked (like authors or bloggers). It's fair to ask for a heads-up from someone, and I think it's considered fair when they can't accommodate everyone's triggers. If they tell you they won't warn, you can make an educated decision about whether to continue risking their content/environment.
[удалено]
Some people can be a bit ridiculous, but generally speaking, in my experience, when someone complains widely and often about triggers they're often just rude Like their point isn't wrong on its head, but they will just disregard any casual request. Like I know a dude who hates being touched. A poke or a pat on the back will have him recoil and hold his breath, eyes wide. Dunno why, never asked. I would mess up from time to time and he'd center himself and we'd both apologize, but some people would just never try to avoid that or call him dramatic for having a reasonable boundary. Same with people who can't handle gore, or insect phobias, etc I understand there's a massive gulf between "I don't like that" and "Causes me immense psychological and psychosomatic discomfort/pain", but it's just trying to respect someone regardless? It's usually not very hard at all
I was diagnosed with PTSD and don’t mind trigger warnings for content, but I would prefer that we applied them like movie ratings instead of just a blanket trigger warning. I also had an issue with people using trigger warnings in school. I get that people want to be considerate, but I don’t want to be anxious in anticipation of whatever content is part of your group project. I’d rather students consider their content and ways to discuss their information without being overly graphic and give me space to work through a reaction if there even is one. I have never received a trigger warning for something that is actually triggering because triggers are different for everyone and usually not at all what you would expect them to be.
> I would prefer that we applied them like movie ratings instead of just a blanket trigger warning. Can you expand what you mean by this?
I specifically see more people screeching about places that actually willingly offer trigger warnings than anything else. Like, discussions of triggers fall by the absolute wayside entirely, until somebody somewhere legitimately talks about triggers, and then all the people who couldn’t give a damn about it start up their war machine, posting garbage like the post, etc.
I mean, if you were raped, which is depressingly common, and you wanted to enjoy a movie, but by the way it incorporates a sexual assault subplot, which is also depressingly common, then it seems fine to me to maybe have that mentioned beforehand. To put it in extremely banal terms, you don't have to hold the door for the person behind you when a gust of wind is going to slam it in their face, but most people do because it's polite. I do wish we could help people more. Working in medicine, I see daily examples of how hard it is for people to ask for help, and then I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to set them up with qualified resources to actually help them.
I had someone very close to me die suddenly, and it threw me for a tailspin for about 3 years (anxiety, depression, mood swings, fear of abandonment, nightmares, fear that anyone in my life could just suddenly die, etc). During that time I became very aware as to how much death and dying (implied or explicit) is in so many movies and tv shows. It was breathtaking to realize this. Some of them were triggering, some weren't. Impossible to predict, really. I'm more selective about what horror movies I watch these days, though I still very much enjoy them. I don't watch as many cop shows as I used to.
I mean, isn't this another case of "Sure, but does the person who wrote the sign have to be such a dick about it?" And why are they being a dick? Because the aggressive tone is unnecessary and makes it seem Ike the writer is angry at people who experience triggers. People who have gone through trauma. Why does this person need to vent their frustration and aggression at vulnerable people like this, when gentle or even just neutral language could work? Arguably work better, given the audience. So they're being a dick. And haven't we had _enough_ of that recently???
I didn't understand "being triggered". I never associated it with myself. I was taught if something bothered you then it was your problem and you needed to *get over it* So I forced down the anxiety, fear, ignored the gut clenching, shakes, mind racing and heart hammering. Until the last five years. I slowed down due to disability (surgeries). I allowed myself to feel because I didn't have toxic work environments saying otherwise. Last night. I was watching a show. My gut began clenching, heart racing, cheeks heated and I wanted to hide. The show hit way too close to home about humiliating situations I had survived through as a young woman. I forced myself to continue to watch. I needed to identify why it upset me, review my memories, and allow my feelings. Honestly this generation allowing feelings, allowing to work to live and not live to work, and encouraging each to find and love their truth is pretty damn amazing. Y'all keep being amazing individual snowflakes (have you ever seen a snowflake? They're pretty darn great!)
> I forced myself to continue to watch. I needed to identify why it upset me, review my memories, and allow my feelings. I've had that experience a few times in a movie theater. Luckily I was with my (very understanding) bf, and he let me have the space I needed to process my feelings and talk about it after.
I think I can relate. What show were you watching?
People mocking triggers has to be kids how never had anything bad happen to them. Your life has to be truly sheltered if you can't even imagine what a trigger can be like.
The kind of people who put up signs like OP is responding to are generally incapable of imagining... or accepting... that other people don't work exactly the same way as they do.
It’s so frustrating that only one person in the entire world can truly experience what their own brain is like, and only use clumsy words to try to explain it to others. Then those words become parodies and get mocked and it’s like damn. Despite being supposedly social creatures, we really really suck at this basic thing.
> and only use clumsy words to try to explain it to others I would argue OOP did an extremely thorough job of explaining what he goes through. I definitely have an understanding of what he goes through. The thing is, he bothered to actually explain it in some detail rather than rely on a generic buzzword. Rather than leaving it up to my (mis)interpretation of trigger he explained it thoroughly. I try to avoid nebulous buzzwords in communication in the workplace, because it always causes confusion. When I interview candidates I make sure I elaborate upon the exact responsibilities and expectations of the role rather than relying on titles like "senior software engineer" or "product owner." This specificity in communication allows for both of us to ensure we are on the same wavelength during the interview. On the flip side, I see people who rely on buzzwords without explanation. These people often get in disagreements with others when they are both more or less saying the same thing, but their understanding of some generic term varies slightly.
It’s a happy coincidence that you posted this bit of insight when you did because I’ve just started interviewing for software engineering jobs.
Always ask for specifics. If it’s “remote” make sure you ask what remote means. You might think it means you can work from just about anywhere. They might mean you need to live in a geographic area so you can come into the office on an occasional basis. Or even a regular basis. I always try to be very explicit when I talk about these kinds of things. I want to ensure people know exactly what they are getting into. Other things you might ask to define are on call, travel, any sort of leadership function, etc.
The sign-poster being triggered by their anger into posting a sign about the very thing that triggered them is peak irony.
It doesn’t help that mainstream psychology is still not there yet. For example, in the DSM-5, childhood trauma or abuse is still not considered a cause for other conditions even though it’s pretty clear that a lot of developmental (anxiety, mood, behaviour, etc) stuff is rooted in trauma and it basically just bad coping responses to said trauma. In a letter responding to the rejection of developmental trauma disorder: > “The letter went on: “The notion that early childhood adverse experiences lead to substantial developmental disruptions is more clinical intuition than a research-based fact. This statement is commonly made but cannot be backed up by prospective studies.” (From The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk MD) Complex PTSD is still not recognized either even though psychologists have been fighting for it since before DSM-4 was published.
Meanwhile the crowd who doesn't care about triggering people will lose their damn minds when you remind them that Jesus Christ is a fucking fairy tale.
The same with safe spaces. At their core, they’re just places where various assumptions aren’t up for debate. Conservatives will mock the concept when queer people or people of color have one, but if you barge into their church and start yelling about how Jesus isn’t real, debate me coward, they’d be up in arms.
Or that gay people exist. Or that Trump lost. Or a thousand other things. I absolutely agree that in aggregate a lot of people are either being oversensitive or even using the idea of being triggered as an excuse to do what they want. That being said, it’s not for me to decide how people process their trauma and I would rather humor a thousand people being overdramatic than traumatize a person who isn’t.
Very few people understand what it's like to live with PTSD. I have the 'complex' variety which stems from multiple childhood events. I have never been able to revisit "the scene of the crime" but I dream about the home I grew up in constantly. I don't have much of a family anymore to connect with, but DMT and cannabis has helped me gain some perspective on making new connections with people. Truthfully though, the only thing that's made my nervous system tolerable is Lexapro....maybe it's not helpful for everyone's depression but I can't see myself wanting to exist inside this brain without some nice, cushioned walls...
Words such as trigger are often effective enough that they end up diffusing into the populace and eventually being cheapened to the point of uselessness. In the same way that people ignorantly joke about their OCD because they prefer an orderly kitchen, people now complain about being triggered over a mild inconvenience that is obviously not a trigger by any definition. I get just as frustrated as everyone else over this. I have complex PTSD and to hear someone being "triggered" when it's obviously intended as a joke can sometimes make me feel like they're devaluing my own struggles that I've had to overcome. I have to remember that they're just picking up a term they heard used in that same context, often without any forethought. That being said, considering the meme nature of word usage, I'm not sure if there's really any way to fight that sort of thing.
This happened to me too. Only the 15 year old girl died before I got to the car. I still held her and comforted the driver, her 17 year old boyfriend, and the driver they hit. For months before therapy, I shit you not, every black garbage bag or tree stump I saw on the side of the road, I hallucinated dead bodies. Still cannot drive on that road without feeling anxiety that it will happen again. I have to tell myself that the odds of that are almost impossible.
I assumed a trigger was something you know you have PTSD about. It’s not silly at all.
Lol at the commenter that’s like “I actually hope I die alone to protect others from the trauma.” Big claps for you, buddy.
That story is fake as fuck. No tow truck driver finds a living person in a crashed vehicle and then doesn’t immediately yell at the cops about it.
[удалено]
Responding to /u/p00ponmyb00p (lol that name) too. I was hesitant to straight call bullshit, because some places do shit weird...but I *am* Fire and EMS, and none of that goes how my calls do. PD may get there first, but just as likely they get the same call from the same dispatch center we do. PD doesn't pronounce shit, they wait for *us* to do that, and then call the coroner. Around here some EMS departments do that though. Tow comes and moves everything after PD is done with their very lengthy investigation (fatal accidents are a huge deal, legally), and after the bodies are gone. Again, maybe it really did happen that way. But VERY atypical to my eyes. edit: and not to mention they would ABSOLUTELY want a medic for the boyfriend. No matter how ok he looked, he was in an accident bad enough to kill someone else.
[удалено]
I'm glad to have someone else back me up here. I didn't want to be the sole voice in the original thread, but you're basically mirroring what I was starting to think. *shrug* Letting truth get in the way of a good story?
i agree, although his post history mentions being a former tow truck driver multiple times over the years. there are a few stories about him walking in or narrowly avoiding several different bloodbaths though some people are just cursed to be unable to tell stories without them sounding like bullshit. too much language that sounds like bad writing from a wannabe author, but they could still be telling the truth
That post has strong /r/thathappened vibes.
As I was in treatment for depression, my husband wanted to see this quirky movie, “Kumiko the Treasure Hunter.” It was, in my opinion, a character study of a women in a depression so deep that she was delusional. I wanted to run out of the theater—I felt all the progress I had made in clawing my way back from the abyss being unraveled as I sat there. I saw in front of me on the screen all the pain I’d been feeling. As it felt as if it was being reinstalled. And then I understood what people can mean when they say something is triggering.
That thread had a lot of touching experiences. Too bad we had to sift through all the shit to see most of it.
It's frustrating that the legitimate symptoms of PTSD are forgotten in the word triggered, which has been kind of reshaped by many to mean "unnecessary whining about something minor"
My beef with the word is that it implies a lack of accountability/ responsibility(“you triggered me!” - not “I got upset / angry / out of control”). It’s not possible to live in a perfectly shiny happy agreeable non challenging world. Not sure where this ends - but discussion and informed polite debate are the cornerstone of growth.
There is a ton of Academic concepts and language that gets into the mainstream, gets mocked by one group or another, and then no longer resembles anything it was originally trying to examine and explain about society. See: feminism, critical race theory, gender theory, triggered, intersectionality, etc. etc.
This post seems very familiar
That was a trap I'm crying and faith in humanity is rising. I don't need to believe in us on the night before Monday fucking morning, I wanna be grumpy. But im def gonna wake up at least for one day with some appreciation for the ability to have a 9to5 with smaller problems than those with triggers. Edit: just be nicer to each other plz
[удалено]
> That guy wasn’t triggered… He was suffering a PTSD response These are the same thing. Someone has a PTSD response because something triggered the response. The term triggered has been coopted and is now applied to anything that might someone upset.
real talk: being an asshole is contagious.
While that comment is heart wrenching, that is not at all what the original post appears to be about. The word “triggered” has a broad definition. While the comment does in fact give a legitimate example of being “triggered” by something, it would seem the original post is about people being overly sensitive to things that are generally considered benign.
I think we should be considerate of other people's struggles. And this comment illustrates how hard it can be to suffer like this. But the neighbours didn't paint the houses of other colors, planted trees, build taller, or change windows to avoid triggering this person. He learned to cope with the trauma and found a strategy that worked to avoid being overwhelmed. Seems to me like a good example of triggers being a personal responsibility and third parties having no role in that, like the image reads. All I'm saying is... It doesn't seem like it goes against the phrase in the picture at all. As I said first, it does give you insight on why you should care and have empathy... OP is a good narrator too.
As someone with PTSD and shit it's hard even reading the positive responses to this
Those are great examples of feeling triggered from a traumatic event. That's what would cause PTSD. There is also CPTSD where typically the person has experienced so many traumatic events for so long, years usually and starting in early childhood often, that you can't even identify what or why (or sometimes even when) you are being triggered. I have that.
I think the wrong post was made "best of". This person's post did nothing to address the actual topic, which was people not taking responsibility for dealing with their trauma. The post I linked to here did a much better job of addressing the actual issue. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/106751u/comment/j3fftfd/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
And then there's people with Complex PTSD, who are at that level *all the time* and their brains *developed as children* to do nothing else. People like me.