4. The doctor didn't keep track of of how many patients ditched him, forever, because the doc doesn't understand the above
-----
Thank you for a thorough reply and debunking of the argument by broken analogy.
The whole idea of content warnings is giving the audience a choice; it's about informed consent — a concept that both HN and the researcher seem to struggle with.
No shit Sherlock that a content warning of the form "some thing you won't like will happen, BUT I WON'T TELL YOU WHICH THING NOR WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN is anxiety inducing!
For fuck's sake, that's a bad faith thing to say.
How about:
>"Warning: I'm going to talk about rape, about 15 minutes into the talk, for about 5 minutes. I'll give you a heads-up, so you don't have to worry. If you don't want to hear about rape today, you can skip this part and stay with us for the rest."
This is a trigger warning.
It enables informed consent to consume any/all parts of the content.
Similarly, "what follows in 10 seconds is a depiction of rape" is a warning.
A trigger "warning" without the option to opt out of consuming the content warned about isn't a "warning", it's a threat.
And a "warning" that isn't specific about either content or time is torture.
>"Somewhere in this talk, we'll show something that we know you asked us not to show you out of the blue. We'll still show it out of the blue, but we're warning you about it now. No, you can't leave"
— apparently, we need a research article to tell HN that this is fucking bullshit.
The cherry on the pie remains what I said in the first place: that the natural outcome of such "warning" (i.e. lack of warning) is that affected people won't choose to interact with you again — and that's exactly what this study doesn't measure.
No comments yet.
