not for you but for me

[dankmemeuniversity]

[peer2peer2peer-deactivated20210]

[wilwheaton]

I’ve been waiting for this all day. Thanks for not letting me down, Old Person Internet.

[lady-feral]

Someone kill me pls

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[pissvortex]

[kabaks]

YOU WROTE THE RULES. READ THEM. 

[depsidase]

[andossp]

GOBLIN PSA

Occasionally you will want to hiss at the sun

That’s normal

[baekphia]

💀💀💀💀💀💀

[dankmemeuniversity]

[browsedankmemes]

[remanence-of-love]

[ruinedchildhood]

Spider-Man (2002)

[bender-rodrigas]

[oppa-homeless-style]

[niggazinmoscow]

It’s the circle where people pretend the American Dream is real so want the aesthetic that shows they worked their way out

[feministism]

[cheeseanonioncrisps]

We’re doing Postmodernism is Sociology, and the teacher was talking about ‘language games'— language that is so specialised that unless you’re part of a specific group it’s totally incomprehensible.

And, as an example, he gave us this monstrosity:

And, what’s even worse— I fucking UNDERSTOOD IT. I had to EXPLAIN this to my fucking sociology class.

This is why we should never have let the millenials become teachers.

[kenyatta]

Trigger Warnings Do Not Work, New Study Finds

Participants who saw trigger warnings before reading or watching upsetting content felt as negative afterwards as those who did not.

The study, in the journal Clinical Psychological Science, describes six experiments—two featuring university undergraduates and four whose participants were working adults recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing website.

All the experiments were structured similarly. Participants first reported their current emotional state to create a baseline. Then they either read a story, or watched a video, about a disturbing topic such as child abuse, murder, and physical domestic abuse.

Half of them saw trigger warnings before being exposed to the disquieting material, and half did not. Examples included “TRIGGER WARNING: The following story contains violence and death” and “TRIGGER WARNING: The following video may contain graphic footage. You may find this content disturbing.”

After reporting their post-exposure emotional state, and giving their specific reaction to the troubling material, participants were asked to read an unrelated article. As they did so, they were instructed to press the “x” key each time they noticed they were “experiencing an intrusive memory or thought” about the disturbing material they had just seen or read.

The results showed a clear pattern. “People who saw trigger warnings, compared to people who did not, judged material to be similarly negative, felt similarly negative, experienced similarly frequent intrusive thoughts and avoidance, and comprehended subsequent material similarly well,” the researchers report.

[lesbirdan]

I mean … yes?

Trigger warnings aren’t meant to “soften the blow” of triggering content; they’re meant so that people can anticipate being triggered, and avoid that content.

This study basically just reinforced that “people are upset when made to view graphically violent material”. I’m not really sure what the researchers were looking to achieve, here.

[stemsynthillusionist-deactivate]

Also like. In the cases where people use trigger warnings with the intent of softening their emotional reactions. Usually what’s happening is they use the trigger warning as advance notice to practice skills to calm themselves down/try and come up with ways to cope/come up with mental scripts/make sure they are in a decent mental state before doing thing/etc.

Like trigger warnings don’t decrease my emotional reaction because the act of being warned is magic. It’s because someone saying “hey, this piece of content has a thing that will bother you” let’s me make informed decisions, like “maybe this isn’t a movie I want to watch when drunk and panicking” or “maybe this is a class session I can only do at 20% capacity without melting down, so I’ll sit in the back and get a distracting task to do.”

Like, if you tell someone there’s going to be a test in a week, they will probably do better then if you said nothing, *because they had a chance to study*. But saying “hey here’s a big test now” immediately before handing it to them won’t change anything, because they haven’t gotten a chance to prepare. The researchers are basically doing that here: the study might be useful if they gave a few days notice and/or provided people with resources on coping skills, but uh, immediate trigger warnings on things they have no control over does not actually allow for any aspect of trigger warnings that’s supposed to help.

This feels like the pop science equivalent of a straw man, tbh. It puts trigger warnings in a context that doesn’t give them an opportunity to work or serve their intended purpose, and then someone makes a headline implying “trigger warnings are useless” and not “trigger warnings don’t do much in this narrow situation where they weren’t actually theorized to work in the first place”

(Also this study seems to assume all participants are comparably triggered by the same stimuli? Which in practice is rarely true. I’m distressed by violent things that are nothing like what has ever happened to me, but it’s nowhere near the distress I get from things I actually connect to vivid memories)

((The study also explicitly did not use any participants with diagnosed PTSD, which the article mentions in exactly one sentence, then fails to adequately consider on their “oh no college campuses” theses. “Hmm this accommodation doesn’t help people without the difficulties it was designed to accommodate, it must do nothing, I am very smart.” Or maybe you tested it on the wrong population, you nitwit))

[feeling-diskinserted]

also like…yeah, people are different??? like obviously trigger warnings are important for different people for different reasons and at different levels??? like *aggressively points at stemsynthillusionist’s last paragraph* jesus CHRIST this study makes me so mad you can’t generalize PEOPLE like that!!! FUCK