Mastodon

1848 readers

1 users here now

The project: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon

Mastodon instance affiliated with Lemmy.World: https://mastodon.world

Discuss the Mastodon platform here. Follow the lemmy.world rules.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

ruud@lemmy.world

104

Content Warnings Do Not Reduce Distress, Study Shows (www.psychologicalscience.org)

submitted 5 months ago by rimu@piefed.social to c/mastodon@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Advocates for the use of trigger warnings suggest that they can help people avoid or emotionally prepare for encountering content related to a past trauma. But trigger warnings may not fulfill either of these functions, according to an analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then how did these traumatised people ever watch the news on TV or read a newspaper where there are no CWs? How did they take part in discussions on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc.? And how are they supposed to work through their trauma when they never get confronted with it?

If they are okay with "some things", they'd have to open each article behind a very generic CW-description anyways. What's the purpose of the CW then?

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's their problem. The thing here is you're complaining about CW because you have to CLICK it, and can't understand it's useful for some people. Instead, you keep complaining and saying it's useless.

Can't you be a bit empathic? Like "I don't understand CW but some people want them, I can deal with having to click through the warning". Or are you entitled to open things in one click over other people feeling comfortable?

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, you're saying these traumatised people need to find ways to manage public TV and newspapers, but on Mastodon everybody else is supposed to accommodate for them and add CWs?

Again, the people that might(!) profit from the CWs are a minuscule amount compared to the people inconvenienced by them. And, as the linked study explains, they even seem to make things worse. So my point is: Just get rid of them. According to that study, that might even be beneficial to these traumatised people.

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"these traumatised people" lol. It's not even about that. The most common CW that you probably use and enjoy is the NSFW warning. You understand that you might be at work and not wanting to see nudity or gore or other sensitive stuff, right? If you're eating while you're browsing posts, maybe you want a "CW: poop" before you open a post and barf a bit because you're eating, not because you can't handle poop.

And yeah, "everyone else" is supposed to accommodate the minorities. Your rhetoric reeks of alt-right, I guess you're "inconvenienced" by reserved parking spots, and for inclusive language, and want to "get rid of them" too?

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -2 points 5 months ago

I'm sorry, but if somebody decides to browse their pr0n and scat alts while they're at work and/or eating... that's on them.

Your rhetoric reeks of alt-right, I guess you’re “inconvenienced” by reserved parking spots, and for inclusive language, and want to “get rid of them” too?

And this is how you demonstrate that you're not interested in continuing this discussion. Thanks for the entertainment, though. :)