That’s because there was none. I think Wade’s posts have been thought-provoking and interesting and I don’t think he meant that to come off as insulting. Just some thoughts on calling people’s beliefs problems. I won’t argue the semantics of “your beliefs” vs “you.”
6 Likes
I misread, I hope, but I don’t like this discussion.
1 Like
I’m sure everyone involved is having a blast.
10 Likes
If I am understanding correctly, you do not like trigger warnings because it allows individuals with trauma to avoid their triggers. I have the sense that your intentions are well-meaning: you want people with trauma to heal from that trauma by learning to deal with or overcome their triggers. But who are you—who are we—to intentionally force exposure on those not yet ready for it if we have the option to give that person a heads-up? And why do we assume that those with triggers will always avoid triggering content and not make the decision for themselves to engage with it safely, on their own terms, with or without the support of a licensed therapist?
I do not like the implication that content warnings are good because it allows non-traumatized individuals to make informed decisions about what to engage with, but trigger warnings are bad because it allows traumatized individuals to make informed decisions about what to engage with.
Please allow counselors and therapists to do their jobs with regard to exposure therapy. Please allow people the choice to avoid or engage, if you have the option to do so, because there are many areas of life where trigger warnings are impossible to implement, and you have no way of knowing how often a traumatized person may or may not be exposed to their triggers daily, weekly, or monthly. These empirical studies are, at their heart, about people. People are more than data in a table or on a graph.
15 Likes
I know one person who has anxiety who came out of confrontation therapy with permanently worse anxiety. Also I read an psychiatrist article who said that because of this, confrontation therapy can harm some people instead of healing them.
8 Likes
Studies can be biased or flawed in their methodology, and, as others earlier in the thread have pointed out, that appears to be the case here. Current studies on this subject are lagging behind trauma-informed therapeutic concensus regarding best practices for traumatized patients, in large part because many of these studies cannot ethically be conducted without causing great harm to the traumatized populations they aim to study. It frankly seems pretty silly to me to be debating the efficacy of what many in these comments, many therapists, and this forum’s own community guidelines regard as a helpful practice.
I’m not convinced this discussion is headed in a productive direction, especially considering the code of conduct in these forums encourages the use of content warnings.
7 Likes
Since Wade has said he doesn’t intend to respond, and it doesn’t sound like anyone here is currently arguing against content warnings in general or the way they’re used in the IF community (just against particular terminology or applications), I think it may be best to close the thread here.
9 Likes
@Draconis
It’s unfortunate, but you’re probably right.
In these sorts of discussions, it’s important to distance yourself from the issue. Don’t assume you know the answer. Don’t challenge the person, just challenge the idea being presented. Don’t put words in people’s mouths. You have to be surgical with your language.
I have trouble practising what I preach, if that’s not evident by now. 
Let he without sin… yadda, yadda. 
2 Likes
I think it’s a fine topic to discuss, but when the last ten or so posts have all been in agreement and the original poster has said outright he doesn’t want to return to the topic, I’m not seeing a lot of reason to keep the thread open. I think everyone who wanted to respond to Wade has said their piece by now, and nobody seems to be trying to refute them, which means not much potential for productive discussion.
1 Like
With all due respect, I would suggest that part of the communication breakdown is that for some people involved in the conversation, intellectualized and theoretical discussions about real life harm and issues they live through is not something so easily made distant. It is emotionally draining- but also is the sort of discussion that drives vulnerable people away from shared spaces. The importance of speaking up on these issues as someone with the capacity and perspective of someone who lives life impacted severely by these is it demonstrates to those who are silent, for exhaustion or fear or anger, they aren’t alone in their stance.
Regardless, I agree with Arlo that it’s probably best to defer to what the established conduct guidelines are, and that there is very little likelihood of this going anywhere productive. To that end, closure of the thread seems appropriate.
9 Likes
when the last ten or so posts have all been in agreement
To be clear, I don’t agree with Wade nor do I agree with posters arguing against Wade. I disagree with both sides as civilly as possible. Not to be combative, just to be clear. I’m going to exit the discussion at this point as well.