> Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive.
It's the first time I've seen something like this on Guardian; I don't even remember it on articles discussing rape, murder or such, which is usually where "trigger warning" applies.
Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous. What about me? I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility, where is my warning?
Perhaps the role of a public broadcaster makes things different. My understanding was that the CBC's decision not to run cartoons of the prophet Mohammad was based on their institutional duty to be inclusive to all Canadians. Ultimately they deemed they can sufficiently report this news without publishing material that will be offensive to a large portion of Canadians on religious grounds.
> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility
How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it.
How does it erode someone's personal responsibility to give them the information they need to make that choice?
> where is my warning?
If there's a largish number of people for whom "trigger warning: trigger warnings" would actually make life less stressful, then I'd endorse people including that warning.
I don't think that population is very large. For that matter, I don't think it includes you.
For epilepsy we have well-justified reason for warnings. For all the other things you mentioned, trigger warnings are wrong approach. What people tasked to cure PTSD will tell you, is that you want constant exposure to the stimuli until your brain starts to ignore it, and not constant evasion.
Trigger warnings are also harmful because they legitimize the idea that you can be offended about pretty much anything you like and therefore such content should not be published. It enables people to behave like children, instead of grownups. Mature people don't get offended because someone says something they don't agree with.
EDIT: What I mean is the danger of those utility monsters you just referred to downthread.
> What people tasked to cure PTSD will tell you, is that you want constant exposure to the stimuli until your brain starts to ignore it, and not constant evasion.
I somehow missed that article. After skimming the first few paragraphs I still sort of disagree with Scott, but I'm going to read it carefully. Scott has really good arguments and reasoning in his writings, so I expect it to influence my opinion on the subject.
I think the disparity here is that the "trigger warning" is warning that there's a possibility someone's feelings might be hurt which is ridiculous. If we start down that path, where do we draw the line?
Please edit your post to include a trigger warning: comparing epilepsy and religious belief may insult some people. See? Absurd.
I care about people's feelings. I agree that there's probably a qualitative difference between offending someone and causing them to have a seizure. But I'd still prefer not to offend them, all else being equal, and this would be true even if there was no such thing as epilepsy.
There's no hard line. We use our best judgement, based on what we know of our audience.
However, I will note one counterargument that I find compelling, which is utility monsters. If we reward people for getting upset, that gives them an incentive to get more upset. I don't know the best way to deal with this, but I suspect that "no trigger warnings" is not optimal.
> If there's a largish number of people for whom ... make life less stressful...
This kind of thinking, that society should accommodate a populations likes and dislikes, is why we get groups that want to forbid Mohammad cartoons and others in the same country that want to forbid religious clothes like Burqa. No matter the combination, forbid one, forbid both or neither, you will always end up with one or both groups being offended and wanting government to intervene.
The alternative as I see it is to not acknowledge the problem, making it a point that what ever people like or dislike is their own problem.
I couldn't agree more! Socialism and equality are among THE most dis-empowering and evil ideas to come out of humanity. Unfortunately, these ideas have taken over reason so completely that they are now universally hailed as virtues.
> If there's a largish number of people for whom "trigger warning: trigger warnings" would actually make life less stressful, then I'd endorse people including that warning.
Good point. However people keep saying that it's all about extremists, not the general population of Islamists, therefore I would also think that (by definition) that population of extremists (who would be offended by such pictures) is not very large.
The reaction of committing murder is all about extremists. I think there are plenty of Moslems who would find the iconography uncomfortable viewing. It just goes against the grain.
Your proposition makes no sense, simple warning someone would offend them that way.
I relate to the OP that trigger warnings are an insult to my intelligence. If such a thing offends me, I should be able to judge it by myself or stop reading. The title is explicit enough to assume the "triggering" content is present.
Trite response: if trigger warnings offend you, you can choose to stop reading when you encounter them. Or just skip them, they take up one line in any given article. Problem solved!
Longer response:
I accept that you, and others like you, don't like trigger warnings. What concrete action would you like me to take in response to this?
If the answer is "stop posting this thing that I don't like", well... sorry, but I'm not going to do that. I think there's a lot of good that comes from trigger warnings, and I don't think the harm they do to you outweighs that.
Meanwhile, other people are saying "I don't like when you post things like this. Please warn me when you're going to post them." That costs a lot less to comply with.
I understand that it doesn't cost much to warn people, I was just stating my disliking of it, not asking for them to be removed. I believe humans should be able to judge things on their own and to handle their emotions at the very least.
You think it does, but you couldn't be further from the truth. The very concept of trigger warnings are costly: Anytime you want to voice an opinion, you're forced to enumerate all the possible ways every reader might be offended or triggered or upset by what you're saying. It's an unscalable solipsistic self-centered notion that implies people are not in control of their own feelings and emotions and how things affect them (I say this as someone who has dealt with mild PTSD). Trigger warnings on banal content trivialize the whole thing, and encourage people not to help themselves.
Getting triggered sucks and is painful and throws everything off balance and is just a horrible thing to experience. But only a fool feels those things and blames the stimulus that brought up the associations. The last time I felt those feelings, I realized that I needed to get help or I was always going to be a broken, unhappy, scared person.
The problem as I see it comes from the fact that a bunch of teenagers on tumblr co-opted trigger warnings from legitimate uses (like on PTSD and abuse forums) and started applying them to idiotic things like fat shaming and otherkin.
Nobody's forcing me to use trigger warnings. I choose to use them for some things. I don't choose to enumerate all the possible ways that anyone might be upset by my writing, and nobody's asking me to do that. There is a potential slippery slope, but even if I go a little too far down it, I'm not worried about going all the way to the bottom.
(I don't read tumblr, or any blogs where I think trigger warnings have gotten out of hand. It's possible such blogs exist. That doesn't mean my own use of trigger warnings is excessive.)
Not everyone can easily get help. If you want a therapist for example, that costs time, possibly money, and depending on your social circle you might fear being made fun of or cast out if they discover.
(Actually, as it happens, I approximately never write anything that needs trigger warnings. I'm mostly speaking in the first person for simplicity, and as a hypothetical "this is what I think I would do if I wrote about such things". I don't recall ever issuing a trigger warning though, so it's possible that I'm being somewhat hypocritical here.)
See this comment [1] for some cites to articles discussing research showing that trigger warnings probably cause more harm than good to the people they are trying to help.
Not directly related to Charlie Hebdo, but related to the Guardian and their "offending" people - they've always been at the top of the list in the UK for being willing to use swear words rather than filtering them out, considering their audience mature enough to see "fuck" without being scared.
There was a good piece in the Guardian about their own use of swear words within the last week which I read on my mobile and can't find (I'm pretty sure it was a column in some section, Culture or G2 or something - it wasn't an official statement), but they had a great example of how every other newspaper reported on the John Terry racism case (football/soccer in the UK) by quoting him as saying "F@@@@@g black c@@t" or equivalent, ironically leaving unfiltered the one word that actually offended the player he said it to.
Warning: This article contains revelations about the deity known as "Santa Claus" which may be disturbing to those who maintain a belief in "Santa Claus" even into adulthood.
Beg your pardon. I find the exact opposite as true. People today, are generally careful and sensitive about what they say about Jews or black people, because they don't want to be labelled as anti-semitic or racist. Muslims seems to be the only minority you can criticize and be politically correct.
Consider the following statement :
"Maybe most Jews are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing zionist cancer they must be held responsible"
Is the above sentence racist? anti-semitic? Blood libel? Incitement to hatred and violence? Possibly prosecutable?
Well here is what Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corporation, the head of one of the largest media organisations in the world tweeted a few days back :
"Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."
Maybe most Kerbals are safety-conscious, but until they recognize and strut up their growing pile of solid rocket boosters at the launchpad they must be held responsible...
To be fair, I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously), the ultra-orthodox political campaigns in Israel (e.g. that men and women should walk on opposite sidewalks). Also, they don't seem to have as many idiotic rules as Muslims (no depictions of Yahweh? or at least I don't know about them, and they take them much less seriously).
>> I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously),
Well I don't think many jews, or muslims for that matter (muslims do it too) would be offended by a reasoned criticism of circumcision. It is usually the hot topics like Israeli actions, or depiction of Prophet Muhammad that seems to trigger passions.
There was quite a scandal in Germany recently, when a court ruled that circumcision was illegal, and both Muslims and Jews threw a fit, saying that Nazism is back.
I agree. People need to understand that when almost every terrorist attack and almost every ongoing war, slaughter, massacre, etc., has "radical Islam" on one side of it, it's difficult to see that those elements represent only a tiny fraction of Muslims.
Maybe truly radical elements are in fact the tiniest sliver, but I'd appreciate some leeway for those struggling to understand how that sliver is so intimately involved in just about every major violence and armed conflict across the world.
The idea that this is a clash of civilisations, rather than terrorists seeking to control co-religionists, is designed to drive both sides to their respective extremists.
I believe that this warning here serves as a comic relief.
Furthermore, it could reasonably be that Guardian here follows somewhat common trend not to sit silently and subdue to terrorism threats but to at least display subtle retaliation. Or it was author's take at this while still getting published. Could be flat-out wrong on this one, though.
And, to make it even worse; the cover is depicted on the side of the article, 140x187px... it's like not printing it at all, because it doesn't look like it's part of the content at all.
The Office 365 ad that is actually inserted inside the article text has three times the screenspace relative to the cover picture.
If the article had images that would cause offense or distress then yes it would carry such a warning. Normal practice, I have seen it many times, mainly for scenes depicting the aftermath of violence. Or even scenes of the meat industry.
> Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous.
Iromically, The Guardian is based on the UK, which has laws that prohibit sending "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"[1].
And it makes things worse. The idea that you have to tiptoe and thought police yourself around some group of people is sure way to antagonize part of the society against that group.
You do have to do that, at all times. It's called "being a functioning member of society" – and that means being considerate of other people's views and feelings, as ridiculous as they may be. Everybody does this, all of the time (well, maybe some people don't. Those people are usually dicks.)
Remember The Guardian isn't a satirical magazine, but a newspaper. It doesn't have the defence against purposeful offence that comes with the former.
Very likely. I heard an two-way interview on NPR with the editor of the Washington Post, another editor from a prominent UK paper (either the Observer or Guardian, can't remember and can't find the episode, but both are members of the same media group) and the anchor.
The editor of the Observer(?) and WaPo were duking it out because the editor of the Observer admitted that he and his staff were frankly terrified of reprisals, and that it was important to admit that publicly, especially if a paper makes the decision not to republish, and that appealing to "sensitivity" as a reason for not republishing the cartoons was a cop-out. The WaPo editor stood by the "sensitivity" excuses. I obviously completely agree with the former.
Trigger warnings are a form of censorship because it makes it much more expensive to talk about certain tropics (mentally) because you have to take sides (whoes concerns are worth putting a trigger warning on?) and because you weaken society to accept that other peoples actions are your responsibility - in effect you are saying that the terrorist actions are in some small part justified.
> Every other faith (and other large group of people) seems to have accepted it however.
This is obviously false. In England the film "Life of Brian" faced multiple bans from local councils on being shown at cinemas. Glasgow had a 30 year ban that ended in 2009. The comedian Stewart Lee faced legal action and a vicious campaign after his opera "Jerry Springer: the musical"; Jewish groups (rightly) decry Holocaust denying cartoons or cartoons comparing treatment of Palestinians to anything that happened in Nazi Germany; Sikhs in Birmingham (UK) violently protested a play, causing it to be stopped.
I'm embarrassed to say that some of my fellow Catholics don't entirely get it. After the attack the Catholic League had a truly stupid editorial of "provocation isn't free speech" flavor.
Religious people will always have a struggle between their notions of the sacred and others' freedom to ignore those notions. Those using their minds will see the necessity of freedom of conscience -- there is no faith without choice -- and accept its implications for speech. But the temptations and ignorances that move people to dictate to others are, I think, common to all religions. Yes, the mainstreams of Christianity and Judaism have gone much further in thinking this through, but we'll always have to guard against this instinct.
Not really. I have some integrists (Catholics) in my family, and they took the trouble to forward e-mails explaining that they didn't really like Charlie Hebdo, because it wasn't respectful towards any religion. In fact, they don't think much of press freedom:
«freedom of expression and freedom of the press don't extend to insulting, showing contempt, blaspheming, trampling, mocking the faith or values of co-citizens». The justification: «insult is violence».
Possibly they are afraid of being mocked. Realizing that people didn't have to take (the idea of) god seriously was transformative for me.
Their email forward about Charlie Hebdo described a cartoon of pope benedict xvi «taking position on pedophilia» (sodomizing children), here's the drawing: http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/tendances/evenements/dessi... . The cartoon is not actually related to Charlie Hebdo, which goes to show they don't read it. That said, here's a drawing that's really be Charlie, lampooning the catholics for a hush-hush attitude to pedophilia: http://stripsjournal.canalblog.com/archives/2010/03/31/27376... . It's accurate: those well-to-do catholics I've talked to, including priests, reacted to the scandals strictly by being preoccupied with perception of the catholic church.
Have you ever considered it is theatre? Have you ever considered that it may be directed at the minds of the non-Muslims?
I am a Muslim and frankly find these attempts at "satire" pathetic. Apparently those who find Islam a hair in their globalization ointment can't argue from a position of reason and have to resort to calumny and provocation.
Oh, please don't take this to such a stupid extreme. Being a deliberate dick to people isn't something to be lauded; be respectful and thoughtful, even when you disagree.
I find "stupid extremes" in the realm of culture much easier to tolerate than those trying to control our behavior through violence. What you label "deliberate dick", most freedom loving people would label defiance.
I fail to see how the attacks have anything to do with racism. Islamophobia is not racism.
> Send me some photographs or your mother or spouse and let me modify those images. Let's see if you are able to ignore or laugh them off.
Well, I'm not sure they would consent to me sharing photos of them, but you can have mine :) Just add me as a friend on Facebook (Tom Primozic), and you'll have a collection of photos you can use! I'll gladly laugh at them, I promise (unless they're not funny or are disgusting or such, but I will evaluate them on purely objective standards, without taking any offence).
> I fail to see how the attacks have anything to do with racism. Islamophobia is not racism.
Muslims, particularly those in the US and Western Europe (i.e. we're not talking about Chechens), tend to be darker skinned on average. It may not be an entirely racist prejudice, but there's certainly often a racist element to it.
See also the term "urban", which in the US is frequently a dog-whistle term for "black people" despite there being plenty of whites in city downtowns.
I could take a photo some someone's male child, photoshop it so he is kissinganother male. That would be enough for some people to murder me.
You can argue that only a tiny number of people would murder me, but then it's only a tiny minority of Muslims who consider murder when they hear of Muhummed cartoons.
> Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous. What about me? I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility, where is my warning?
I agree wholeheartedly.
They may have decided to preface their article with this message because they feared retaliation by zealous Muslims who would not otherwise expect to see a depiction of Muhammad in the Guardian.
I don't think it detracts any from the content of the reporting, though.
# On topic #
There are two possible extremes to consider:
1. A world in which any idea or custom is subject to criticism. Nothing is sacred. We can criticize, laugh at, depict, and mock anything that anyone believes. Publicly. Without fear of violence.
2. A world in which NO idea or custom is subject to criticism. Everything is sacred. Do not criticize, laugh at, depict, or mock anything that anyone believes.
My problem with religious extremists is that they, in general, seem to want World #2 for themselves and World #1 for everyone else. I'm more of a "World #1 for everyone" sort of person, and you're free to mock me for that if you'd like.
>They may have decided to preface their article with this message because they feared retaliation by zealous Muslims who would not otherwise expect to see a depiction of Muhammad in the Guardian.
Heh. I don't really think I'm even disagreeing with the majority media narrative here. I do think trigger warnings can be taken to ridiculous extremes (e.g. imagine a trigger warning every 30 seconds of a horror film) and, as a result, am not fond of them as an idea.
It's the first time I've seen something like this on Guardian; I don't even remember it on articles discussing rape, murder or such, which is usually where "trigger warning" applies.
Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous. What about me? I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility, where is my warning?