Thoughts on triggers and warnings

[sqbr]

Recently in fandom there's been a big argument about warnings on posts. The best summary, imo, is Warnings Wank In Bandom on Unfunny Business, but if you haven't encountered the idea of people being triggered by descriptions of sexual assault I recommend Triggers and Trauma and Sexual Assault, Triggering, and Warnings: An Essay(Warning: Very explicit discussion of sexual assault and the nature, anatomy, cause & effect of triggers. Is itself triggery.).

This post is a collection of thoughts on the issue, not all restricted to fanfic.

I don't have any triggers myself. There are topics which tend to upset me, and certain kinds of fiction which make me feel bad, but that's not the same thing. What I do have is friends with triggers. I've read enough descriptions of what a trigger is like to NOT want to do that to anyone (especially not anyone I care about), and I've been very politely informed that I've inadvertently caused one enough (ie at least once) to be VERY careful, though still not always careful enough.

And for me this has nothing to do with "community norms". For example, I put this under a cut, not out of peer pressure, not because I thought anyone would yell at me, but because I didn't want to cause my friends or anyone else extra pain. (I didn't add "Warning: About triggers, may cause triggers" because I can't see that being helpful. I'm open to correction on this though) You can never totally avoid hurting some people sometimes, but we can all do our best and try and learn from our mistakes.

People talk about how movies and tv etc don't have warnings but, well..why shouldn't they? Maybe the fact they don't is a sign of the way that mainstream media is less responsive to the feelings of it's viewers than fanfic fandom. EDIT: Sorry, I expressed that badly. I agree that there are lots of things that act like warnings (reviews and trailers etc). But even if there wasn't that wouldn't necessarily make it ok for us not to warn anyway: "as good as mainstream culture" is a pretty crappy standard to hold yourself to when it comes to stuff like accessibility.

Also I've seen a few people imply that it's appropriative to talk about this in terms of privilege etc but I really don't think it is. As a disabled person, I see this as an accessibility problem, and people being privileged prats about it are being ableist(*). Not all the people it affects are actually disabled, but afaict(**) the relationship between triggering and related psychological problems like PTSD and suicidal depression etc is similar to the relationship between "having problems with stairs" and related physical problems like quadriplegia: on the whole the more hurdles and prejudice that person faces in everyday life the worse they will be affected by the accessibility problem, so contributing to that problem unnecessarily or refusing to acknowledge it is thoughtless and ableist.

I have seen some people saying "This is EXACTLY like racism/RaceFail" etc which is appropriative imo. There are some striking similarities in the way people defend their privilege, but some pretty important differences too. I guess the problem is that fandom doesn't have the language to deal with disability as it's own separate thing (Yet. I say optimistically. Though I imagine the only way we'll get there is via DisabilityFail :/)

I think the thing that annoys me the most from (EDIT: some of) the less Totally Failtastic commenters is that sometimes they make reasonable points but it's clear that even if they're willing to warn sometimes they still see the feelings of people who get triggered as important but secondary to their own convenience, and will for example make no particular effort to denounce the extreme anti-warning people while simultaneously complaining about being lumped in with them. EDIT: Not everyone who has criticisms of some of the ways warnings are currently implemented is doing this, and some of those criticisms are imo valid.

So I won't stand for that here: If you don't want people to assume that you're a prat who doesn't care about the feelings of people with triggers, make it clear that you do (and not by concern trolling).

EDIT: Reading some more I think that while I haven't seen anyone being pro-warnings with the same intense nastiness as some of the anti-warnings people, there is still some unfortunate over-generalising and not-listening. Right. More, on warnings. is the best post I've seen on this so far, though I think a small minority of people ARE being malicious. Also an important point I've seen made is that painting anyone who's not 100% unambiguously pro warnings as "anti survivors of sexual assault" is unfair to survivors who are NOT triggered and/or use BDSM etc as a way of working through their issues etc.

(*)Of course other disabled people (especially those with a more relevant disability) are welcome to disagree.
(**)And I don't know a lot about these sorts of psychological issues, so my apologies if I'm spouting crap. Also I realise a lot of people use "psychological problems" as code for "reasons I can dismiss you as irrational and inhuman" but that is the opposite of my intention. AND that I still don't have a major grip on what does and does not count as a disability (and I both wouldn't want to apply the term to someone who doesn't identify as disabled and wouldn't want to tell a disabled person that they "don't count")

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

You seem to be saying that we have a moral imperative to support people with triggers and that anything other than actively saying we support them is wrong.

The problem with that is it closes the debate down in the same way that the racism debate has been closed down. It puts people on the anti-warnings side under huge social pressure and hence makes it very difficult for them to say anything calmly at all. Now that is an excellent way to 'win' an argument if all you want to do is impose your own standard as the socially imposed norm, but it is not the way to win an argument in real terms. Imposing a social etiquette is not the same as getting people to actually welcome a stance that they disagree with, it is simply slapping a plaster over a still festering wound - and sooner or later the puss will build back up and leak out. We see this happen time and time again with racism on LJ - the FOC and their allies have indeed gained control of the discussion, very successfully so, but since there are huge swathes of fandom who have not been convinced by their actual arguments, things fester under the surface, it's just very very difficult to talk about them.

I actually find what is happening with the warnings debate quite heartening. It did indeed start out with similarities to the race debates - with an emotional appeal, provoking very emotional responses and rapidly degenerating into some quite appalling name calling and bad behaviour from both sides. But then something rather unusual seems to have happened. The initial posters seem to have got emotionally exhausted quite quickly, and withdrawn from the discussion, but new posters have stepped up and are engaging in what is actually a very civilised and non-emotional debate. And the result is I am actually really learning things about why the anti-warners hold the opinions that they do. I won't say that I have been swayed to their side yet, but I certainly have a much better understanding of their opinion and am less likely to just dismiss it out of hand.

However, I do feel strongly that one of the reasons why this dispassionate debate has become possible is precisely because people on the pro-warnings side are not all claiming it as a moral imperative to agree with them. When I made my own post I very carefully worded it not as 'this is what I think you ought to do' but as 'this is what I do - take it or leave it' because I felt the former was a way to close the debate down while the latter was a way to leave it as a discussion, a topic for consideration rather than something to feel worried about.

Not that my post actually garnered many comments, but I can see evidence in other people's oblique mentions that they read it and have digested its intent, and it certainly didn't attract wank which was my main fear when I posted.

I'm not saying that one should never come out and say that one supports a disadvantaged set of people, but sometimes it is better left unsaid.

[sqbr]

HMMM. So..I disagree with almost everything you've said for a range of different reasons. Here's an attempt at covering all the different bits.

You seem to be saying that we have a moral imperative to support people with triggers

Depends what you mean by support, this may be covered in my next post on the topic.

anything other than actively saying we support them is wrong

Well, silence on the issue is fine. But if you come into an emotionally charged polarised conversation like this where a bunch of really nasty stuff has been said by people who superficially agree with you, I think it's important to make it clear that you don't support their position if you don't want to people to think you do. Note: After writing this post I decided that enough (less but still unacceptably) bad stuff had been said by people who superficially agreed with me that I needed to make my own more nuanced position clear too, hence my second post.

I think this does the opposite of closing down the debate. I'm not saying certain POVs shouldn't be shared(*), I'm saying they should be expressed carefully to avoid being misinterpreted or inadvertently hurtful.

Are you saying people whose feelings have been hurt by racism/triggers etc shouldn't express that hurt, because it will make the people who are perceived as having hurt them defensive? Because if so that's an absurd double standard. Why then shouldn't it be the people who are hurt by the accusations of being hurtful(**) who keep their emotions in check? Because in both RaceFail and this discussion it was them who got really angry and abusive and defensive in large numbers first, and continued to be the source of the worst nastiness throughout.

I'm going to have to leave the costs and benefits of social expectation bit for now because it's too complicated. But while I agree that an overly rigid social code is harmful (and the pro-warnings stance has tended that way in some cases) I don't agree with your overall analysis.

And I'm not comfortable with your comparison to RaceFail: being anti-warning is not the same as being racist.

(*)Well, I am, but only the ones that are 100% totally without merit, which most aren't.
(**)Which is not the main motivation behind a lot of the not-totally-pro-warnings people, but it seems to be for some of them.

[ex_peasant441]

But if you come into an emotionally charged polarised conversation like this where a bunch of really nasty stuff has been said by people who superficially agree with you, I think it's important to make it clear that you don't support their position if you don't want to people to think you do.

I think I'd rather just try to make my own points and hope its own tone will speak for itself. But maybe you are right and this is something I have been doing wrong - maybe that is why I so often get an extremely hostile reaction and people assuming I am saying things that I am not. Hmm, needs pondering.

Are you saying people whose feelings have been hurt by racism/triggers etc shouldn't express that hurt

No, absolutely not. I think people who are hurt by anything should be entitled to express that hurt in whatever way they see fit and that it can serve a useful and vital service to their 'cause' when they do so. Not least because none of us would even know about these social justice matters unless they happened to affect us directly without the hurt expressing their hurt.

However, I am also saying that anyone who wishes to encourage discussion of an issue, as opposed to just trying to get their own way (although encouraging discussion can be a vital first step to ultimately getting your way, so the two aren't mutually exclusive) will be best served by avoiding anything that closes down the debate. In most cases this includes avoiding an emotional tone. So since the people who have been hurt and the people most trying to encourage discussion are frequently the same people, they are going to have to make an individual decision each time they engage about what they most wish to achieve that time round. This sucks but I reckon it's an unavoidable fact of life. I don't see it as a case of one side or the other having to be less emotional, because really there are never only two sides in these matters. It is a case of each individual taking a personal decision about what they can best do to help achieve whatever they personally wish to achieve.

I'll respond to the comparison to racefail thing in a separate comment.

[sqbr]

Oh, I didn't mean YOU "you", I meant general "you". Though I don't know, it may apply to YOU you too, I know that being really careful about how I could be interpreted seems to have cut down the amount of time people spend pissed off at me.

I ...really am not convinced that an "emotional tone" is the problem here. I think emotive arguments have been misused, but there's a big difference between "Action X hurts my feelings like so, and in my opinion the best way to avoid X is to take action Y" and "If you don't take action Y then you obviously WANT to hurt my/their feelings". And a lot of the people saying the second sort of statement are not, afaict, all that emotionally hurt to begin with.

[ex_peasant441]

I guess I may have a stronger dislike of emotional tones than many people. I equate emotion with being out of control and therefore illogical and bad argument and I find it almost impossible to treat anyone with respect if they are being emotional - my instant reaction is to try to diffuse the situation with humour or try to calm them down some other way. Which come to think of it they probably interpret as belittling or silencing. I don't know how common that reaction would be - it would certainly be pretty standard amongst my class of English people, but I am well aware I am in a minority in fandom.

But in undoubtedly wider terms, I think that a lot of the problem boils down to the large sections of fandom who react very badly to being told what to do. So anything that even smacks of 'do X or you are a bad person' or 'do X or we will attack you for doing it' gets an immediate response of 'f--- off, I'm going to go do X'. And yes, it is a noticeable trend that it is the so called allies who most often use the strongest blackmail. I'm not quite sure why that is, but it is a huge shame because the allies are often in the strongest position to persuade non-allies to agree to the desired action voluntarily.

Speaking of which, I realised something the other day. I've often seen it said that a POC will make some point about racism and be ignored, but then when a white person says exactly the same thing other whites will immediately agree. I've never actually seen it myself, but I did wonder why that might be the case. (I'm assuming here that we both agree most white people don't harbour some obscure prejudice that makes them believe all POC are stupid or liars.) Then it occurred to me that if I think in terms of my 'being asked to pay a price' metaphor, it makes perfect sense. The POC can only talk about requesting the price be paid for them, but in most instances only a white ally can say with any authority 'I have willingly paid this price and find it a perfectly acceptable one to pay'. That then is why their voice has so much more value and authority for other white people. What do you think?

[sqbr]

Which come to think of it they probably interpret as belittling or silencing

Yes, I think they would.

we both agree most white people don't harbour some obscure prejudice that makes them believe all POC are stupid or liars

Actually, no, I think we do have that prejudice, or something like it, but mostly subconsciously. I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that identical opinions are taken less seriously if they appear to be from POC/women etc (see these links). I know trans people have reported dramatic changes in the way their opinions are accepted. And this is regardless of whether or not we're talking about race/gender etc.

I mean I think the effect you're talking about happens too. But I definitely don't think that's all there is to it.

[ex_peasant441]

Actually, no, I think we do have that prejudice, or something like it, but mostly subconsciously. I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that identical opinions are taken less seriously if they appear to be from POC/women etc (see these links). I know trans people have reported dramatic changes in the way their opinions are accepted. And this is regardless of whether or not we're talking about race/gender etc.

I'm not doubting the phenomenon, just the mechanism. I always hate the notion of subconscious beliefs that we don't even know we have and yet somehow come through and infect our behaviour. Freud and all that stuff about doing things because your mother once wiped your bum with her left hand just makes no sense to me. If I believe something, I reckon that I know I believe it. And I reckon other people would know their own beliefs as well and it would get talked about. Besides, if we did have some big subconscious belief that all POC/women were liars/unreliable, how is it being transmitted if it is subconscious? I have the social skills of a slug, half the time I can't pick up cultural traits that are fully acknowledged, talked about and directly taught, so the chances of me developing ones that other people are only transmitting subconsciously strikes me as slim.

So I reckon we have tribalism - which is pretty atavistic hence it being hard to stamp out. But in situations when the signals for tribalism are muted, such as the internet because you can't see people and you can't hear them, then I reckon the starting place to look for why the message isn't getting across has to be internal in the message itself. That would also help explain why POC sometimes complain about not being heard even in situations where the person ignoring them didn't even realise they were POC. In real life face to face contact tribalism is probably the bigger factor, on the net it could well take second place. And the great advantage of looking at the message not the beliefs of the recipient, is that it is something under the control of the person doing the talking - so a positive way in to make changes. I can't change someone else's subconscious beliefs about me, but I can modulate the message I use to talk to them, and that gives me hope.

Make sense?

[sqbr]

Sorry I took so long to reply, I was trying to formulate a deep response but I don't have one.

So: Your POV makes sense, but I disagree with it.

And that's really all I can think of to say! (Since I think my opinion is fairly clear from previous comments)

[ex_peasant441]

Yep, looks as if we've whittled this one down to one of the fundamental belief differences, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

[sqbr]

*nods*

[ex_peasant441]

And I'm not comfortable with your comparison to RaceFail: being anti-warning is not the same as being racist.

No, not exactly the same, but the similarities are striking and I think instructive.

In both cases:

• A set of disadvantaged people (D) are being hurt by the actions of others
• A set of writers (W) are being asked to adjust their behaviour to prevent this hurt
• A set of bystanders (B) without a direct stake in either direction are also pitching in with their opinions
• A set of avoiders (A) are trying to stay out of the whole business

In each case, set W have to weigh up numerous factors before deciding to do whatever it is that D is requesting. These include (but are not limited to):

• deciding whether they believe the Ds have a genuine grievance
• deciding whether they wish to try to help
• deciding whether there is actually a valid solution on offer
• deciding whether they will themselves suffer inconvenience or difficulty in complying
• deciding whether they will themselves suffer inconvenience or difficulty in not complying

And in both cases each individual W will be further influenced in the choices they make by similar factors:

• their pre-existing prejudices about the Ds
• the tone the Ds are using
• how their personality responds to that type of tone
• what their friend, enemies and general community are doing
• what their own moral/logical background instructs them to do

And meanwhile the Ds and their allied Bs are experiencing some or all of the following:

• trying to use moral and social pressure/blackmail to influence the outcome
• having to cope with their own emotional reaction to a subject that affects them strongly
• worrying about the social pressures the wank is causing amongst their own friends and fandom
• dealing with answering a lot of questions about some very personal matters
• etc.

Really the only difference is in exactly who is affected, how they are affected and hence exactly what measures they want the writers to take.

[sqbr]

I think what you've described (A single central argument which neatly divides with most of D on one side) is halfway between the two dynamics. Also in both arguments there's writers on both "sides" and lots of in-between or tangential positions people took rather than dividing neatly.

The warnings debate is, at heart, about the question "Should everyone use warnings?", and then, if so, what does that mean eg what its the consequence of not using them, who counts as "everyone", what counts as a warning, etc. Now it has become clear that NOT using warnings has implications with regard to people with triggers, so some people have framed the question as "Should everyone make an effort to help people avoid triggers?". But as time goes on it's clear that using warnings and respecting the needs of people with triggers, while related, are not identical goals, and in some cases are contradictory.

Meanwhile RaceFail had no central question or argument. People just started talking about race and racism on a particular topic, and then started arguing, and that started more arguments, and then people got inspired by those arguments to take a stand against broader issues relating to race or attack those they felt had behaved badly, and it exploded from there. I mean questions about writing The Other were central to the initial dispute, and came up repeatedly, but many of the arguments weren't about that at all eg afaict most POC agreed with Elizabeth Bear's stated opinions on writing The Other, it was everything else she said and did that upset them.

Hmm. I'm not 100% happy with this reply, it really hasn't captured everything I want to get across, but I think it's going to have to do.

[ex_peasant441]

afaict most POC agreed with Elizabeth Bear's stated opinions on writing The Other

That just leaves me gobsmacked. And illustrates why racefail was an utter fail because I had no idea that any POC or allies agreed with Elizabeth Bear's ideas about writing The Other. The main impression I had got was that they disagreed vehemently with both her theory and how she put it in practice in her own writing.

OK, still blinking in shock, but I'll try to answer your other points.

I thoroughly agree that the sets D and W overlap and aren't neat distinctive groupings. When I was planning that comment I fully meant to stress that point but then it obviously got forgotten when I actually wrote. (Coding lists takes far too much concentration - sometimes I hate writing accessible comments.)

The warnings debate is certainly simpler and smaller, but I still reckon we can draw informative parallels and learn from the comparison. Although if Racefail wasn't actually about what I thought it was about then maybe the parallels are less useful.

My unreliable perspective

[sqbr]

I might have overstated (for a start, I came into the discussion a bit late). But afaict while some people feel EBears fiction is racist, it's not considered super-amazingly racist just somewhat problematic, and her first non-fiction post about writing the Other was very well received by pretty much everyone. The initial problem was that her writing, while not super-racist, is still apparently more racist than you'd expect for someone being so smug about how to write in a not-racist way. And the REAL problem was how she reacted, not even to the criticism itself, but to other people's reaction to the criticism (and then how she reacted to people's reactions to that, etc). It descended into a cycle of people over-reacting to criticism involving race, and then other people criticising that over-reaction, and people over-reacting to that criticism, etc. So the central issue becomes "People over-react to criticisms involving race". And by it's very nature, such a complaint is going to descend into a nasty cycle, although on the plus side it continually provides it's own proof.

This is quite different to MammothFail, where for a long time Patricia C Wrede wasn't involved in the discussion at all and people really were just criticising her book and the ideas behind it (although other people's reactions to that criticism fueled it's own RaceFail-esque dynamic at the same time)