Trigger Warnings and PTSD

This is something I have been thinking about. I didn't think I was quite ready to write about it yet, but I saw today was PTSD Awareness Day. It must be time.

Another thing I have been thinking about is knowing when someone is operating in good faith when you are disagreeing about something. When you point out that something they are saying or doing is rude or inhumane or in complete opposition to fact and they apologize for hurting your feelings, that has been a pretty good negative indicator. Reducing everything to hurt feelings is not a sign of someone having a sincere interest in understanding anything.

I can't help but notice that when people are dismissive of trigger warnings and content notifications, it does not take long for them to talk about special snowflakes whose feelings are so sensitive. Let's be clear on this: the purpose of trigger warnings is to let those suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder make a plan for how they will deal with the material.

People use the word for other things, like a lot of people with addiction conditions will use it for things that might tempt them to relapse, or people will use it jokingly in the same way that pretty much every mental health term gets used inappropriately. Those are things that have come from the term being used, but the value of the practice needs to be evaluated against its purpose.

Trigger warnings don't exist because today's college students can't handle challenging material. It doesn't give students a free pass on studying some materials. Ideally, it will prevent them from going into a flashback in class, and allow them to decide how to handle study materials. That could involve making sure to read some materials in a place that feels safe, or perhaps to have a friend or the medication that one takes for panic attacks nearby. It could mean skipping a specific class session and reviewing notes later.

This seems to be poorly understood. Neil Gaiman showed no understanding when he chose his book title. Ralph Nader doesn't get it. Let's talk about it.

I have seen video games with signs warning of flashing lights that may induce seizures; that is helpful information to have. I have also gone into plays and operas where there was a sign posted saying that there would be gunfire or strobe lights during a specific act. That is a trigger warning. It's not obtrusive, but for someone who has been in a war zone it can be good to know.

Allowing susceptible audience members to avoid flashbacks can be good for the entire audience, in much the same way that trigger warnings can benefit the entire class -- not all flashbacks will be disruptive to others, but that is something that can happen. Some people will still really resent it, possibly more because of the association with academia. Let's look at that.

Who is most likely to have PTSD? The first group is rape victims. Does that matter for a college campus? Given the amount of sexual assault that happens on campus, yes. Sure, a lot of them drop out after their rapes, but not all of them, and not right away. Apparently we think rape is a pretty bad thing, because I have read that calling a person a rapist is the worst thing you can say about them, right? I mean, look at how much Brock Turner suffered, compared to the woman he raped.

Reporting for rape victims has a lot of cons outside of school, but many colleges make it worse. It was already bad, and funding is being cut. Putting it all together the message is clearly that not only would we rather let women be raped than do anything against rape culture, but also that if you are having a hard time after your rape, we resent even minimal accommodations for helping you get through this difficult time. Not only women are raped, but perhaps that is a side effect of misogyny.

It's not just rape survivors who get PTSD though, is it? One fun fact I learned today is that an estimated 20% of firefighters and paramedics have PTSD. That might not seem like a big campus issue, but I have known several people who worked their way through school as paramedics. They could be a significant part of the student population. Even more people pay for school by joining the military, which is a great place to pick up PTSD.

I understand this even less; we are supposed to reverence our veterans, right? They are our heroes, called upon whenever we get mad that someone is not standing for the National Anthem. Maybe I have had some suspicions about that being a crock when you consider the amount of homeless veterans, I mean, there might be some other signs that it's just lip service, but I want this thought about:

If trigger warnings are helpful for veterans who have been injured (maybe a psychological injury, but frequently in combination with physical injury) serving their country and now trying to get an education, are you going to be against that?

And if all of these thoughts are new, and you really believed the only potential reason for such a thing as trigger warnings is modern college students being too soft, why were you so quick to believe that?

And if you have dismissed something that seems like a liberal thing so easily, but can see the value of it now, are there other things you might be missing? Because a lot of this connects.