Literally anything can be a trigger. For instance, Christmas could be a trigger for someone whose loved one died on Christmas, or someone who was assaulted on or near Christmas, or a non-Christian who faced extreme hostility during the season. I'm not saying that all Christmas-related content should come with trigger warnings, but I am saying that triggers aren't always conventional. I remember a post by someone who is triggered by popsicles, clear broth, and jell-o, because those were the only things they were allowed to eat during a very long, unpleasant stay in the hospital. Food can also be a trigger for people with eating disorders, or alcohol can be a trigger for recovering alcoholics, etc.
Also, trigger responses look different in different people. Not everyone has flashbacks. Some people become withdrawn, some get aggressive, some have panic attacks, some fall into depressive episodes, some relapse into harmful habits, and so on.
Precisely! Thank you for explaining this often misunderstood reality so well.
I mentioned in my last post in this thread two incidents I've had where something I said inadvertently triggered trauma in someone I was talking to in a social situation. One was due to the anniversary of the birth of their still-born child, and the other was a fairly common word that was used in a particular context which caused a "flashback" episode to a time they were abused. Neither of these were incidents I could have been aware of ahead of time. Thankfully, both times I noticed their distress and was able to help them deal with the situation as effectively as possible. I did nothing wrong, and neither did they - life just happens like that sometimes.
In written form, words and context can be just as triggering. I often use "Trigger warning : ____" when sharing content on Facebook. I share a wide range of things, and as an educator with a strong interest in human rights issues, many of the topics that I link to and talk about can be very distressing for particular people I know. Anything to do with child abuse gets clearly sign-posted, as does animal abuse. Graphic descriptions of violence/injuries et al, photos and videos of a graphic or explicit nature, and the like are also labelled. If the comments of an article have content I know will upset some people, I also mention it.
I use "trigger" warnings to allow people to make their own informed decision about engaging in content I share. With so many friends and acquaintances who come with so much "baggage" (a terrible term IMO) covering everything from murdered loved ones/deceased children/miscarriage/rape/sexual assualt/incest/sustained child abuse/self harm including suicide attempts/PTSD from war, any of the above traumas, other causes such as car accidents, armed robberies, and on and on and on.. I personally feel it would be incredibly rude of me to disregard that knowledge I have and just kinda hope that noone "takes" offence*.
I appreciate people warning me about similar content so that I can choose when I engage with it. A link that looks nice and easy yet actually talks graphically about child abuse is absolutely NOT something I want to read before going to bed, or when I've had a bad day at work.
This is the same way the schools and universaties I know "warn" about things that might seriously distress people, whether it's labelled a "trigger warning" or not - not to censor content, or provide an "opt out" clause, but to allow individuals to prepare themselves and/or engage with the content at a time of their choosing. For example : detailed historical accounts, including graphic photos and videos, of experiments conducted on children were covered in one of my required classes in my children's services : education and care diploma course. The course paperwork noted this content and it's scope, as well as the purpose for it's inclusion in the course. An advisory note was included on the class timetable as well as the summary of assessments. Additional time with our teacher was allocated after the classes spent on this in order to "debrief". Knowing in advance about the content as well as seeing the thought and care that went into providing it allowed us to get the most out of the experience as students. No "shock tactics" necessary, no feeling of being blindsided, no distraction from engaging with the actual content.
I fail to see how this approach is a *bad* thing. Done poorly - as with anything - it can cause problems. I'm not personally aware of any use of trigger or advisory warnings (you know, like the ones at the start of movies on tv? Or messages before certain scenes in all kinds of tv shows/videos warning that "if ___ you may like to look away..) IRL that actively hindered rather than helped. I'm sure examples exist, but they are not at all the norm at least where I live. Given my personal experience with trigger warnings, I'm at a loss to understand the amount of ridicule they receive.
* A misnomer - feeling offended is a reaction, something that happens to you, not something you *cause*. Inapproprate or distressing reactions can certainly be worked upon, and even controlled to an extent with a great deal of time and assistance. But a visceral reaction is literally as unstoppable a bodily response as blinking, swallowing, or breathing are in a healthy body.
