You, most likely, have already read the post that inspired this little rant. But I’m not going to link to it. Mainly because no one reading this deserves to be exposed to the OP’s fuckery again and partially because because this seems to be a universal problem, and it seems to operate thusly:
Step 1: People with disabilities develop a system that allows us to be safe and active in a discourse, much of which is about us and our safety (think image descriptions on PWD websites). Hooray for accessibility!
But then, Step 2: A Privileged Fuck comes along and says, “waiiiit, there are all of these self-advocating PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES out here and they seem to be challenging my right to blather on about other people’s lived experiences. Oh noes!” And thus, ableist slurs/image descriptions/transcripts/trigger warnings for PTSD survivors become really fucking contentious issues.
Until, Step 3: the people with the disability in question either
A. give up on participating in that particular community (which invariably spends, I’ll say it again, a lot of time discussing the lived experience of those self-same people) or
B. stop participating in actual, mutually-beneficial conversations amongst community members and instead spend all of their energy trying to show the Privileged Fuck why they need to stop jeopardizing our access to the community. This will go on for as long as Privileged Fuck holds out before realizing what an asshole they look like.
Either way, the outcome is the same: contesting the basic accessibility rights of a PWD can almost guarantee you that this person—and everyone with that person’s disability—will shut the fuck up about whatever it is they were saying before you implied that they had no right to occupy space in your little online universe.
For survivors, and other people with post-traumatic reactions, any vague threat to our communities’ emphasis on trigger warnings functions exactly like the phenomenon above. We become terrified that this threat will actually be realized, that trigger warnings will seem “antiquated” or “too sensitive,” and that we will never be able to participate safely in conversations about our own experience of rape/abuse/violence.
And so, comments like, “why do you need a trigger warning?” or “aren’t you being over the top?” aren’t just offensive, they’re debilitating. Because they require us to drop absolutely everything we were working on before and focus solely on defending our right to exist here, online, in the communities we’ve helped build without fearing for our psychological safety.
When you divert survivors’ attention from rape culture, you perpetuate rape culture.
When you divert soldiers’ attention from the evils of the military-industrial complex, you perpetuate the military-industrial complex.
When you divert the attention of people who’ve suffered systematic abuse from combating systematic abuse, you. perpetuate. that. abuse.
This is about way more than just “hurt feelings” or “hiding from the truth.” This is about our survival as people, as a community, and as a social justice movement.
The other argument I hear is that “it’s important to see these things and face them.” That’s all well and good, but some of us JUST CAN’T FACE them because WE KNOW OURSELVES. A TW gives us the opportunity to decide what we are able to deal with today.
What I don’t understand about folks who are anti-trigger warnings, or bitch and whinge about being asked to use them, is just … I mean. Come on. If you were in a public space with an alcoholic, and you were shoving drinks in their face moaning, “OH FUCKING YUM MOJITOS,” and they’re like, “Hey, please could you stop, I just want to hang out, and you’re making it hard for me,” you’d be an asshole. If you’re in a public space where anyone is able to participate, when you are approached by a reasonable request to add trigger warnings to what is OBVIOUSLY triggering material, you’re just an asshole if you won’t.
On that same note, why is there this insistence that people NEED to face things? Maybe what people need is to limit and/or control their exposure to some things and they should be trusted to know what’s best for them. Trigger warnings don’t necessarily mean people won’t face shit - but they’ll be prepared.
I started a book a couple months back and put it down almost immediately because I can’t find anyone who can tell me if something horrible happens to the puppy. A confirmation that something terrible happens to the puppy won’t make me NOT read it - but I’ll be prepared for that and that way it won’t hit me out of the blue and fuck me up. Being able to prepare myself for that shit is more important to me at the moment than finishing what is, in many ways, a well-written story. I’m not saying there should be, like, a warning on the back cover. I AM saying we’re all doing the best we can and a) we aren’t obligated to face stuff all the time no matter what other people think and b) information is power and it allows people to make their own choices - sometimes that choice is not to read and sometimes it is to go ahead and read with the power of being forewarned (it’s forearmed and all that).
This strikes me as coming from the same place as people who rail against image descriptions. “OH NO I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.”
↧
The Ableism of Anti-Trigger-Warning Sentiment and Why it Matters
↧