Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 154 posts

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#131

Post by antifa »

josephg wrote: post #118
komali2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people only extend empathy to their in-group. The left just has a different in-group. Depends on how you define in-group I guess? Most of my leftist friends are straight and white, yet all of them support LGBT rights as human rights, went to Black Lives Matter protests, etc. Yet similar straight, white conservative former friends of mine do not extend empathy to the black american experience, or will outright…

It’s up to your leftist friends to define their in-group. Not me! Sounds like the in group is queer people, BLM people and so on. > A core tenant of leftist ideology is universal empathy, as a basis for support for universal human rights, equity, etc. There’s lots of people the modern “woke” left in the USA doesn’t seem to care about: poor people, people with low IQ, white people in conservative areas, people who liv…

This comment is extremely vague and overly feels-based and anecdotal.

> [the left] doesn’t seem to care about: [long list of random things]

Based on what? This sounds like you didn't even check, didn't ask, probably weren't even going to look.

> For example, a white male friend of mine is utterly crippled by trauma from his absentee dad. He doesn’t feel like anyone in his broader community cares about him and his problems at all.

Could be worse, could be that your parents kick you out and your broader community actively wants to make you illegal.

The left, on the other hand, wants affordable healthcare, which includes coverage for mental illness and access to therapy.

Your friend's feelings of alienation is a small part of a much larger social problem the left cares deeply about.

For everything else, it sounds like maybe you expected """the woke left""" to show up randomly and magically solve all your friend's problems? They don't run society, they're not in charge, they're barely holding off their own problems. Mutual aid networks are a lot of work, especially when you're not bankrolled by billionaires.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#132

Post by maxbond »

Mezzie wrote: post #119
maxbond wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you think about a casual/emergent ontology, like the way fan fiction is tagged, or like Wikidata? I realize these are very different approaches, but people are already putting in huge effort to categorize content just out of their own passion, and I'm curious what you would think of a user-generated approach.

AO3's system was actually what I was comparing the idea to, mentally. Running AO3 does take a fair amount of $ (although a lot of it does go towards legal and server costs), and the tagging system is centrally managed. I think that people would do that for fanfiction because the people doing it get something out of it, whereas not enough people would benefit from a more expanded trigger ontology. People will fund thi…

Part of what I'm asserting though is that it would be generally useful to people, because they may be filtering for what others are filtering against. Say that you have a phobia of frogs. You can filter out frogs, but someone researching them can filter for them .

I mistook how AO3 works. I guess I'm thinking more like Tumblr or Flickr. Say it isn't centrally organized. We're just tagging them likes we sees 'em. So someone creates the frog tag because they want to use it and it doesn't exist. Then they tag something because it has a frog. It never crosses their minds that someone may have a frog phobia; the filtering is done by the frog fearer themselves, so it isn't disclosed to bullies who might use it against them, or anyone else they want to keep it from for reasons of their own privacy.

There's still problems here, one person may read `frog` and another `frogs`, mistakes can be made, things can be mistagged deliberately, etc. but I think there's promise to the approach.

If you have resources to recommend on library science, I'd be keenly interested.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#133

Post by evouga »

komali2 wrote: post #52
all2well wrote: post #10

What about stuff like movie and game ratings? What about things like restricting sexually explicit material to minors? Seems like a weird point to make. What I like about content warnings is that I can choose whether I want to engage with something that might upset me in a more granular fashion than “entire profile.” It’s not like I’d stop avoiding content if there were no CWs anywhere.

Yeah this is where I was always confused, I think "trigger warning" has become one of those ill-defined concepts, especially in american political discourse, that mean so many things that they don't really mean anything anymore. Other examples: "liberal," which I've heard mean everything from anarchism through communism and all the way to its actual definition, "communism" which seems to mean fascism, "fascism" which…

I haven’t seen “grooming” used in a homophobic way? Instead it has been extended to mean “any relationship whatsoever with a vaguely unusual age gap.”

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#134

Post by wpietri »

dmix wrote: post #107
wpietri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think one should let consideration drive paralysis. But I don't think devoting a modest amount of time to being considerate is wasteful. That said, I think there are plenty of people who feel resentful that people are now asking them to be considerate when before they could get away with being thoughtless jerks. That's especially the case when the requests for consideration come from groups constructed as les…

> Those people can go fly a kite. > From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them This sort of smug/stereotypical dismissal of why people don't care to add preambles to every comment/paragraph they write or say aloud that might offend or upset someone is exactly why people push back on this sort of thing. Ignore all counte…

Oh, I see. When you write it's an intolerable burden to think of the feelings of others. When I write it's absolutely awful that I don't coddle your incredibly delicate feelings. Noted.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#135

Post by wpietri »

TomSwirly wrote: post #116
wpietri wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If I'm going to warn people about content, it's because of what those specific people might struggle with. It was something I understood better once I found a piece of pretty ordinary media traumatic. And here I should say: content warning for cancer and death. Some years back my mom was getting treated for a brain tumor. It was a glioblastoma, and as one of her surgeons explained, "This is the thing you wil…

You probably won't read this, but when I saw that movie, my mother who was really not too different from the mother in that film, she had died some years before from some other but overall similar disease. I had been laughing my head off until that point, but when his mother says, "I didn't want to be any bother," I started crying and just cried and cried through that whole scene you describe. So I really feel for yo…

Thanks. It's the mark of good drama that it touches us, of course. But sometimes it touches us in spot that's still very tender.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#136

Post by lazide »

wpietri wrote: post #134
dmix wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those people can go fly a kite. > From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them This sort of smug/stereotypical dismissal of why people don't care to add preambles to every comment/paragraph they write or say aloud that might offend or upset someone is exactly why people push back on this sort of thing. Ignore all counte…

Oh, I see. When you write it's an intolerable burden to think of the feelings of others. When I write it's absolutely awful that I don't coddle your incredibly delicate feelings. Noted.

FYI, This right here is how folks get punched in the face or cutoff from their family IRL.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#137

Post by wpietri »

lazide wrote: post #136
wpietri wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. When you write it's an intolerable burden to think of the feelings of others. When I write it's absolutely awful that I don't coddle your incredibly delicate feelings. Noted.

FYI, This right here is how folks get punched in the face or cutoff from their family IRL.

Ah, that's how I know I've found the people truly dedicated to rational discourse: when somebody speaks honestly, just like they advocate for, they threaten violence. Sorry to hear your family relationships are so brittle, though.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#138

Post by lazide »

wpietri wrote: post #137
lazide wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, This right here is how folks get punched in the face or cutoff from their family IRL.

Ah, that's how I know I've found the people truly dedicated to rational discourse: when somebody speaks honestly, just like they advocate for, they threaten violence. Sorry to hear your family relationships are so brittle, though.

You misunderstand friend, rather completely.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#139

Post by xigoi »

all2well wrote: post #54
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the overall concern is that people in general seem all too willing to ignore reality. I can't really speak for any particular group in US ( or even in the old country ), because I am sufficiently weird that I do not really fit anywhere. Yay me. That said, trigger warning is already a trigger word and may need to replaced with something else to avoid emotional reaction ( although I admit I do not have a good r…

The point I was probably trying to make is that I suspect that the author of this study and the accompanying article probably has a particular political axe to grind. That's mostly just conjecture, though. Moral panics are nothing new, and (self-)censorship is nothing new either. I think it's naive to think that conservatives have "gotten over" gay marriage, or gay rights more broadly, especially given how recent pro…

> or gay rights more broadly, especially given how recent progress has been in those areas, and how much opposition remains to things like trans rights.

Why are people still conflating homosexuality with transgender? They're completely different issues.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#140

Post by xigoi »

acoustics wrote: post #81
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the overall concern is that people in general seem all too willing to ignore reality. I can't really speak for any particular group in US ( or even in the old country ), because I am sufficiently weird that I do not really fit anywhere. Yay me. That said, trigger warning is already a trigger word and may need to replaced with something else to avoid emotional reaction ( although I admit I do not have a good r…

> Lately, it seems, it is not conservatives are not the ones calling for boycots, bans, deplatforming and demonetization. Without getting too far into the weeds of partisan politics, I’m not sure how you got this impression. Ask your local school board or your local library which political side spends more time trying to get media banned.

Look at social networks like Reddit, Tumblr or pre-Musk Twitter and notice what kind of speech they ban. For example, are you more likely to gét banned for saying “white people should die”, or “black people should die”?
Post reply on HN