VCE texts to be screened for depictions of violence and swearing

[heids]

I don't think sheltering or not talking about issues is the healthiest way to process them socially.  Sure, some authors write things unsympathetically/unhelpfully, and they should be avoided, but you can deal with triggering issues in an edifying way.  Also, schools have the power to decide which texts are appropriate for their specific demographics.

And man if you filtered swearing Brenden's word counts would be cut in half and that's a deep tragedy :-/

I am *strongly* against the idea of allowing attacks or damaging content because you have to deal with them in the real world.  It's not acceptable to me just because it exists everywhere.  The only way to change a culture of hate/trolling/not caring about how what you say affects others, is to stand up against it where you can. Showing compassion is the only way to combat it.

EDIT: yes, Brenden's right, disagreeing with your opinion here doesn't mean we don't appreciate it or you

[geminii]

I'm not 'against' trigger warnings per se. I just think that they're ridiculous. Sure, you can say 'trigger warning' to notify someone you're going to be speaking about something harmful, but this just isn't representative of what will happen outside school. No one is going to treat you like a fragile flower vase when you're outside school/uni. People simply aren't going to say 'trigger warning' before any opinion they have that may be considered remotely offensive.

Someone on You Tube was even putting trigger warnings in their description due to discussion of food, because someone watching may have had anorexia or bulimia and the word 'food' might trigger them. This censorship thing is getting a bit ridiculous.

What's the worst thing that's going to happen to you if you're in class and the teacher doesn't say trigger warning before talking about slavery in America? Are you going to have a panic attack because you're so emotionally unstable that the word 'slavery' sets you off? Now think, what will you do when you're out in the world, past uni, and someone mentions the word slavery. Or 'food'. Or 'abortion'. Or 'murder', or 'death'. Are you going to have a panic attack every time you hear one of those words?

Rather I think it's more important to deal with the situation head on. Why hide behind trigger warnings? It's treating people like precious snowflakes who need mollycoddling - 'watch out, here's an opinion you might disagree with!' Different opinions and discussion of difficult topics are a part of life. It's important we expose people to them without prefacing every single idea that may be offensive with 'trigger warning'.

What is the real world? Are you speaking from experience in it?

Trigger warnings... I'm a big on being understanding re: mental health and personally, I don't understand them and can't empathise because there's nothing for me to be triggered by. That being said, isn't complaining about it and getting offended by their presence just, stupid?
 
If, as a lecturer, I hVe to say "btw all, discussing abortion in this lecture, so TW"... even if it is the case that there's no evidence to their benefit... who cares? No one is worse off. Not one single person is worse off for that 5 seconds, but potentially, there is a person or a small collection of people who could be fantastically better off.

Doesn't seem like a political thing to me, just seems sort of basic like, who really gives a fuck if people are warned about triggers? If you're more upset by that than by the potential for people suffering from PTSD to have an episode, or people to otherwise feel severe discomfort that might have been lessened, then I question whether your motivation for arguing against them is coming from a rational place, or coming from a place of baseless grumpiness for the sake of it.

Edit: screening for swearing is absolute trash and disgusting puritanical bs

Again, not upset with trigger warnings. And I'm the last person to be offended over everything. I think getting offended over someone else's views is ridiculous and indicative of a need to 'man up'. Oops. Sorry. I might have offended someone. I meant, 'gain strength mentally'.

See, the thing is, now we have to tiptoe around everything we say for fear of offending someone. Yes, things will offend you. Yes, you may not like what someone else has to say. But you're going to have a very difficult time if you get offended so easily that you need trigger warnings.

Also, while I disagree with your opinion.. I admire and appreciate your willingness to offer it

Thank you! Also know this isn't a personal attack on you or anything...sometimes I know it may come across that way

EDIT: yes, Brenden's right, disagreeing with your opinion here doesn't mean we don't appreciate it or you

Thanks heids

I don't think sheltering or not talking about issues is the healthiest way to process them socially.  Sure, some authors write things unsympathetically/unhelpfully, and they should be avoided, but you can deal with triggering issues in an edifying way.  Also, schools have the power to decide which texts are appropriate for their specific demographics.

Agree with the first sentence but not the rest - I don't believe 'unhelpful' and 'unsympathetic' views of a topic should be avoided. They should be discussed - how are they insensitive, perhaps? What effect do they have on the reader? etc. It is important to be exposed to material that results in a variety of feelings, not just those that we are comfortable with.

I agree that schools have the power to choose which texts are appropriate etc., but I don't think this is the way it should be. Schools should expose their students to a wide variety of views and opinions and choosing specific tests that are 'appropriate' for thei demographic is not the way to go. If I lived in rural Australia I would not want to read texts on the issues of rural life all the time - some texts about issues in big cities and other areas are important to read too because who knows, the student may go live in a demographically different area than where they attended school and due to only reading books 'appropriate to their demographic area' they may not be exposed to life in these new places.

[zhen]

I have a somewhat similar opinion to geminii, as I think that we shouldn't screen out things that are deemed as offensive, as it helps properly educate students on these sensitive matters. I feel like the things we learn from doing what we don't necessarily enjoy are important. For example, in philosophy in year 9 I watched a video about slaughterhouses and even though it was really disturbing, it really opened my eyes to the treatment of animals which I thought was really enlightening. Basically I'm saying that at some point in our education we should learn about these issues rather than avoid them. However I do feel like things like trigger warnings would be nice, but should only occur during really sensitive topics or issues, so people who really don't enjoy these topics can leave. I can accept some censoring, if the books contain really descriptive gruesome details, but I'd say that stories that contain a bit of violence or sensitive information shouldn't be screened out.

[patriciarose]

Exactly, I'm more right wing and I think trigger warnings are ridiculous. Wait until you get out into the real world and no one cares whether you're offended or not!

that is painfully beside the point though? idk, thinking they're ridiculous solely because they don't benefit you seems a tiny bit self centred to me, but even ignoring that, general offence is not really why they exist. i am offended by homophobia but i am capable of viewing a text that contains it without it being overtly detrimental to me. a person struggling with self harm may not be able to view a text that deals with suicide without being triggered by it (and i'm not speaking in hypotheticals here, for the record). warning, say, abuse survivors that a text/film they may be forced to study in school will contain themes that may force them to recall their trauma might ruin the plot slightly for them, but if it protects them too then that seems like the best of a bad situation, to me at least.

the mental health of students is a pretty prevalent concern in general atm and whilst i don't believe texts that cover darker themes should be omitted, it seems only fair to warn the people who could be seriously affected by them in advance? i mean, people are going to know if they need the warnings or not, and if they don't, avoiding them is as simple as /not reading them/.

What's the worst thing that's going to happen to you if you're in class and the teacher doesn't say trigger warning before talking about slavery in America? Are you going to have a panic attack because you're so emotionally unstable that the word 'slavery' sets you off? Now think, what will you do when you're out in the world, past uni, and someone mentions the word slavery. Or 'food'. Or 'abortion'. Or 'murder', or 'death'. Are you going to have a panic attack every time you hear one of those words?

Rather I think it's more important to deal with the situation head on. Why hide behind trigger warnings? It's treating people like precious snowflakes who need mollycoddling - 'watch out, here's an opinion you might disagree with!' Different opinions and discussion of difficult topics are a part of life. It's important we expose people to them without prefacing every single idea that may be offensive with 'trigger warning'.

Again, not upset with trigger warnings. And I'm the last person to be offended over everything. I think getting offended over someone else's views is ridiculous and indicative of a need to 'man up'. Oops. Sorry. I might have offended someone. I meant, 'gain strength mentally'.

See, the thing is, now we have to tiptoe around everything we say for fear of offending someone. Yes, things will offend you. Yes, you may not like what someone else has to say. But you're going to have a very difficult time if you get offended so easily that you need trigger warnings.

okay, but people have different life experiences? if you've had an abortion and it was traumatic, hearing the word might freak you the hell out – if you haven't, it won't. personally, i see warnings less as coddling people, more as viewing them as adults who are able to identify the issues that cause them trouble, determine whether or not they'll be present in media and either avoid or prepare for them. idk, i feel like there's a distinction to be made between just an opinion you disagree with and an opinion that is literally damaging your wellbeing.

tbqh i'm not a big fan of man up either ahaha but again, people do have different levels of mental health? saying get stronger doesn't magically /make/ somebody stronger, and it's not going to speed up a gradual process either. nor will plunging them into a triggering situation help. you can't exactly tell a panic attack to go away (although if someone does work out how to do that, please let me know). slow acclimatisation helps people improve, when they're prepared for it. and if to achieve that a few people have to scroll past some warnings that don't apply to them, well, idk. i'm not seeing the problem with that half a second of annoyance tbh.

not meant to offend you btw, i'm not sure if this is going to come off wrong but it's not meant to! (:

[brenden]

that is painfully beside the point though? idk, thinking they're ridiculous solely because they don't benefit you seems a tiny bit self centred to me, but even ignoring that, general offence is not really why they exist. i am offended by homophobia but i am capable of viewing a text that contains it without it being overtly detrimental to me. a person struggling with self harm may not be able to view a text that deals with suicide without being triggered by it (and i'm not speaking in hypotheticals here, for the record). warning, say, abuse survivors that a text/film they may be forced to study in school will contain themes that may force them to recall their trauma might ruin the plot slightly for them, but if it protects them too then that seems like the best of a bad situation, to me at least.

the mental health of students is a pretty prevalent concern in general atm and whilst i don't believe texts that cover darker themes should be omitted, it seems only fair to warn the people who could be seriously affected by them in advance? i mean, people are going to know if they need the warnings or not, and if they don't, avoiding them is as simple as /not reading them/.

okay, but people have different life experiences? if you've had an abortion and it was traumatic, hearing the word might freak you the hell out – if you haven't, it won't. personally, i see warnings less as coddling people, more as viewing them as adults who are able to identify the issues that cause them trouble, determine whether or not they'll be present in media and either avoid or prepare for them. idk, i feel like there's a distinction to be made between just an opinion you disagree with and an opinion that is literally damaging your wellbeing.

tbqh i'm not a big fan of man up either ahaha but again, people do have different levels of mental health? saying get stronger doesn't magically /make/ somebody stronger, and it's not going to speed up a gradual process either. nor will plunging them into a triggering situation help. you can't exactly tell a panic attack to go away (although if someone does work out how to do that, please let me know). slow acclimatisation helps people improve, when they're prepared for it. and if to achieve that a few people have to scroll past some warnings that don't apply to them, well, idk. i'm not seeing the problem with that half a second of annoyance tbh.

not meant to offend you btw, i'm not sure if this is going to come off wrong but it's not meant to! (:

I identify with this post.

[Joseph41]

Yeah, great post, patriciarose. Really nicely puts things IMO. For the record, I think the phrase "man up" is terrible and has horrible effects.

I don't think trigger warnings are aimed at the majority. If there's a trigger warning for suicide, I don't think that's aimed at people who find the issue a little uncomfortable or taboo. It's aimed at people who are deeply suicidal, and for whom exposure to the issue at that particular time could be deeply harmful. And catering people in such situations is surely a good thing - for everybody.

The fact that trigger warnings have turned into a meme is pretty shit IMO.

[kbanks]

This is a really interesting discussion about how early on, and what, we allow young people to be exposed to before they 'enter the real world'.

Couple of things I think are important:
- Firstly, we have to keep in mind that young people these days are entering the 'real world' a lot earlier than used to be the case, and I don't believe that screening VCE texts for any depiction of violence or swearing is going to protect students from experiencing what the real world involves, and possibly experiencing the negative side of it. I am a big believer in not wrapping people in cotton wool, because eventually they will leave high school and have to land on their own feet, in a world that is not always nice, and very rarely perfect.

- I also believe that the use of texts such as these in VCE opens up the perfect opportunity for us to TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES in a safe, open and respectful manner. People (including me) are constantly complaining about how school doesn't teach anything 'useful' for real life, and now they're attempting to shut down a possible way that we could open up frank discussions about real issues? Ridiculous.

- HOWEVER. I do respectfully disagree with the idea that trigger warnings have no place in schools. I think that to frame the conversation in such a way as to diminish the idea of a trigger warning is painfully naive to the reality of mental health, and possibly damaging to those that are suffering in silence. Trigger warnings for novels or texts that deal with abuse, violence, or suicide, is necessary and absolutely has its place in our school system. I think the way that we discuss dealing with mental health in schools needs to change, (but that's a rant and a debate for a different thread). If we can protect one person from having their mental health harmed during VCE (which is already a mentally and emotionally challenging time) through a trigger warning, then why wouldn't we use them? If we discussed trigger warnings the same way we discuss emergency epipens in the first aid kit, the results would be ridiculous. "But so many people don't have peanut allergies, why do we have to stock epipens in the first aid kit, when people go out in the real world there won't be emergency epipens everywhere they go" (SIDE NOTE: I'm not actually sure that's how you spell epipen).

Conclusions: DON'T screen for violence, because real life happens and it sucks, and we should talk about it. DO use trigger warnings, to help the individuals who are suffering, and those who may be suffering and not asking for help.