Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the idea of trigger warnings is a really good one. "Here is a topic not everyone will be able to process. If you don't feel like you can be a part of it, please leave, because we WILL be talking about it." This is a very anti-censorship stance. Tyler Cowan said it best: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/why...

However, triggers have changed from a thing individuals are warned of that they have a personal responsibility to avoid, to something the world is supposed to avoid for people.

"I was triggered" has become an argument some groups make as a way to say something inappropriate happened. This is non-sensical, because the idea of triggers is that something random sets someone off because of a past experience. We can't remake the world because strawberries set you off!

What's worse, this use of triggers as a preemptive is a very small step away from certain groups censoring others.

Triggers are a great idea, but only if being triggered is not be an argument against something being done, and not if it is a phrase that holds any power as a preemptive. That is that part that needs to change, the preemptive, nothing that triggers anyone is acceptable part. I just can't see how that part can or will be changed.



Which is ultimately why they are bad. Asking people to "tag" everything that could be offensive is moronic.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: