Further thoughts about warnings

[sqbr]

This isn't a strong expression of opinions (for that see Thoughts on triggers and warnings), I started replying to someone's comment and realised I had so much context to fill in my actual reply was getting lost.

I think even more than is usually the case with this sort of polarised emotionally fraught argument, the "anti-warnings" "side" is made up of a very diverse group of people, going from people being total prats to those making reasonable points and not actually anti-warnings at all, just with specific misgivings about how warnings are implemented etc, and in the middle are bunch of people making a certain amount of sense but not expressing themselves very well and/or thoughtfully. I've included links because I think part of the problem here is that when people defend or attack a "side" they're not always clear which groups they're talking about.

Now one response to that is that these misgivings are still paltry or derailing compared to the importance of making fandom more accessible and less painful for people who are triggered by fic. I think this is true on some cases but not all.

One of the axioms of how I view the world is Listen to the people at the bottom of the pile. I wrote that before I became disabled and would probably do so differently now, but it still captures the basic principle of why I think people-who-are-triggered-by-fic should be the most important voice in deciding how best to prevent them being triggered.

But I think some of the pro-warnings meta is ignoring that axiom itself, by being unsympathetic to people who don't want to identify as having triggers, by conflating triggers/PTSD/being a survivor of sexual assault/etc and by THEN ignoring people who have misgivings about warnings which are the direct result of one of these things.

Also the idea of privilege (which is related to my axiom) breaks down a bit when judging the behaviours of individuals when you have something like sexual assault or being triggered which is both invisible and stigmatised so people may not wish to publicly declare it, and where the very fact of being in the less-privileged group interferes with your ability to speak up about it.

I still think these concepts are valid for making overall judgements, assuming that there's no overwhelming correlation within the group of people who have triggers etc between being willing to be open about having triggers and one's stance on warnings.

I do not have strong feelings about the specifics of how warnings should be formatted or set up, since it doesn't affect me much either way (all my fic so far is at AO3 and marked "None of these warnings apply") But what I mean by "being in favour of warnings" is roughly this:

You write a story. Any sort of story you like. Then, when going to post it, you think seriously about if it's likely to trigger people, and if so you add some sort of warning or notice:

• If it unambiguously hits a commonly agreed on trigger like rape, and there's no harm apart from mild inconvenience in adding a specific warning, add one.
  
• If you think it's likely to trigger people but you're not comfortable "warning" for, say, consensual BDSM, then if there's no other objection to being specific mention it via the summary, a "kinks" section etc.
  
• If you think it's likely to trigger people but you don't want to give away the plot/nature etc of the story or otherwise don't want to add a warning, either be vague ("May trigger some people") or explicitly say you don't warn.
  
• If you don't think it's likely to trigger people but aren't sure, say so.
  
• If you're sure your story your story isn't going to trigger anyone with any of the main triggers you know of then say so. It's one more story for people with triggers to read!
  
• Overall, be aware of the possibility of triggering and make a good faith effort to avoid blind-siding people, especially if someone contacts you to say a story of your triggered them. Maybe have a warnings policy somewhere obvious or linked to?
  

Right. More, on warnings and Why Everyone Was Right, But Also Wrong, Why That Is Okay, And What We're Going to Do About It are two more "pro-warnings" posts which try and include some of the criticisms of the not-actually-anti-warnings-but-have-some-misgivings people.

Note: I am not interested in criticisms of warnings which claim to be for the good of people with triggers but are from people without triggers and not backed up by links to anyone who actually has triggers agreeing with them. Some examples (which I'm open to counterexamples about):

"But what about the increased danger of fic which says it doesn't need a warning but does?" I'm assuming that if this was a significant problem, people with triggers would say so but I don't recall seeing any of them doing so. Obviously people will screw up sometimes, the point is to do our best and listen.

"But if everyone just says they choose not to warn what difference does it make?". See above, also I'm pretty sure that for a large proportion of stories which don't currently have warnings, if the author felt they had to say SOMETHING they'd say "No major warnings apply" etc, thus increasing the pool of fic that people with triggers can read (relatively) safely.

Also: I REALLY don't like this being framed in terms of the responsibilities of people with triggers. I'm not saying they don't have any, but many of them have explained why "Just avoid fic without warnings" is not a valid response, and the axiom comes in again. (I have come across some people who say they're ok just back-buttoning, but none for whom reading a triggering fic is Just Not Acceptable who are ok only reading stuff marked "No warnings apply" or otherwise vetted) Also it tends to get victim-blamey really fast.