one thought on the warnings debate

[mimesere]

ETA 06/25/09: I retract and apologize. I misread a comment which subsequently colored the rest of what I was reading. I also withdraw as this is not an argument I am going to wade into.

I have other thoughts and a lot of frustration with regards to this because of many semantic things, but this is the part that is currently frustrating me the most:

When calling people out for their behavior with regards to racism/sexism/misogyny, etc, the argument has always been the assumption of good faith on the part of the person making the mistake, such that the mistake was not intended to be made and a correction would be welcome.

Being told that I am deliberately and maliciously setting out to trigger someone by a lack of warning is not assuming that I am acting in good (though ignorant) faith. It may honestly be that it never occurred to me to warn because *I don't know better*. And having malice attributed to me is not really a way to make me want to learn.

Additionally, and this does speak to semantics: I'm fine with warning for non-con because that is a clearly delineated and identifiable thing. Dubcon? Abuse? Tell me where the triggery lines are and I'm happy to warn for them, but without knowing for sure, I'm going to default to my own experiences which may be further than is healthy for someone with triggers for those issues.

ETA: I am at work and cannot mod effectively. I am willing to discuss, but keep in mind that my time is limited and burst-like.

Comments

[queenofhell.livejournal.com]

Can you please link to where you (general you) were accused of maliciously and deliberately attempting to trigger people, please? I must have missed that (there has been kind of a storm of comments lately).

[mimesere.livejournal.com]

When I have the opportunity next to jump into the comments to pull links and quotes I will happily do so. That I did not now is due to constraints of time.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying, but I kind of disagree. From what I've read, most people are starting on good faith that the person doesn't know better and attempting to educate (Imp's entry is a prime example of this, I think). It's only when the conversation continues after that, when people have tried to explain the problems and the response is still dismissive or just uninterested that people start feeling like people simply don't care about the harm.

[halfacork.livejournal.com]

Where I stand, where I'm sure to be pelted with rotten fruit momentarily, is that unless specifically required by a community warnings are up to the author's discretion. If someone doesn't want to include them, they don't have to. I prefer they do. More than once I've wandered into a death fic and claimed, "OMG I'M SCARED FOR LIFE!" over IM to someone but you know what? I'm not.

If a fic is going to scar me for life I have bigger issues than what I read on the internet.

I'm not belittling triggers but it annoys me when the responsibility for someone else's mental health is put on the writer.

That is the short version of my response, short of my diatribe about the meaning of "common courtesy" but I have to walk over to the dentists.

Oh, or possibly get dressed first.

Hmmmm.

[saturnalia.livejournal.com]

I'm not belittling triggers

Actually yes, you are. Triggering is a little more serious than being sad because a fictional character just died; impertinence has a fantastic post (http://impertinence.livejournal.com/480847.html) that explains the difference and the mechanism of triggering really well. (Warning for anyone scroll by: Very explicit discussion of sexual assault and the nature, anatomy, cause & effect of triggers. Is itself triggery.)

[halfacork.livejournal.com]

My apologies. I was not aware of the context of this conversation and see where my comments might have been offensive.

[minna.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry if people have said anything that assumes bad faith -the requests for warnings and the discussions framed around it, that I have seen (which admittedly won't be all of them) have generally been careful to point out that it isn't forgetting or being ignorant of the effect of these things that's shitty, but deliberately choosing to disregard the concern after being made aware that are doing so in bad faith.

I honestly believe very few people intend harm to others, and even less when creating fiction. But the number of people who have stated quite baldly that they understand the harm triggering cause, but choose to continue not to warn because of reasons of 'artistic integrity' or ableism, are the people who my anger and nastiness have been commented at.

And if, in my anger and hurt at the situation I haven't made that clear, I am so sorry, because it's needlessly shitty of me to have done so. And I made the assumption when I made my post that everyone would have read imp's post already, if nothing else, and that's not a fair assumption for me to have made.

So, I don't know if I'm one of the people who made you feel like people are making bad faith ssumptions, but if I did, I hope you'll extend to me a courtesy I was too thoughtless to clearly extend to you, and believe me when I apologise.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I'm with pearl_o, but I also. Hmmm. As with racism discussions, I think that the people with power/privilege need to be aware that they have this privilege, that it affects their interpretations, and that the tone of arguments -- whether it's the feeling of accusation or the actual assumption of malice -- is irrelevant to whether the argument or request is just.

The parties I see as powerful/privileged here are the healthy, or the presumptively healthy, and the parties I see as oppressed are the triggered/PTSD sufferers/trauma survivors. I am aware that some people have attempted to argue that readers or writers are a privileged class, and I think that shows a misunderstanding of what "privilege" means in progressive political rhetoric. I do think that society privileges and prioritizes the healthy and diminishes and disrespects the unhealthy in important ways, particularly regarding trauma related to rape, abuse, and assault.

the triggery lines

[raveninthewind.livejournal.com]

IMO the most common triggers would include incest, rape/non-con, suicide, torture, and self-harm. There's been a debate (past and present) over how "dub-con" is defined, but having the warning is better than not, if you feel in doubt. I don't know if "character death" not related to the previously listed factors is likely to be triggering on a scale to be in the "always warn for" category, but it does seem to be a popular request of readers, so that one is more of a judgment call.

[ficangel.livejournal.com]

Withdrawing this comment while I read more of the posts of the people in the core of this debate, whereas I had previously apparently been reading mostly from the fringe.