Advocates for the use of trigger warnings suggest that they can help people avoid or emotionally prepare for encountering content related to a past trauma. But trigger warnings may not fulfill either of these functions, according to an analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science.
So, you’re saying these traumatised people need to find ways to manage public TV and newspapers, but on Mastodon everybody else is supposed to accommodate for them and add CWs?
Again, the people that might(!) profit from the CWs are a minuscule amount compared to the people inconvenienced by them. And, as the linked study explains, they even seem to make things worse. So my point is: Just get rid of them. According to that study, that might even be beneficial to these traumatised people.
“these traumatised people” lol. It’s not even about that. The most common CW that you probably use and enjoy is the NSFW warning. You understand that you might be at work and not wanting to see nudity or gore or other sensitive stuff, right? If you’re eating while you’re browsing posts, maybe you want a “CW: poop” before you open a post and barf a bit because you’re eating, not because you can’t handle poop.
And yeah, “everyone else” is supposed to accommodate the minorities. Your rhetoric reeks of alt-right, I guess you’re “inconvenienced” by reserved parking spots, and for inclusive language, and want to “get rid of them” too?
I’m sorry, but if somebody decides to browse their pr0n and scat alts while they’re at work and/or eating… that’s on them.
And this is how you demonstrate that you’re not interested in continuing this discussion. Thanks for the entertainment, though. :)