The Significance of "Triggered".

a reply to: ketsuko

However, for victims of PTSD, isn't part of the process learning what can set you off? Isn't part of regaining control of your life learning the ins of outs of those mental pitfalls?

Of course. And they do. If you have figured out a way to control the environment around you all the time, short of staying home round the clock, your dreams, everything sound on TV , radio, and in public, then please contact the VA and let them know. They might appreciate your insights and expertise. Who knows? Maybe you have the answers to questions both patients and physicians have been researching for decades.

(I guess its easier to blame the patient for their own illness. Good lord.)

Anyway, there are essentially no expectations from you, apparently not even a bit of understanding, so no worries!

a reply to: intrepid

I can understand PTSD but why not add in the people where the world 'triggering' started?

Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Assault.

Self inflicted Injury persons and, people with eating disorders.

That's where 'triggering' started.

And I know very few autistic's who are 'triggered' by WORDS.

Sounds, touch, food that's not the right texture, stress, etc. Rarely, a word or so.

peace

What a load of BS.

Liberal college professors co-opted "triggers" and started setting guidelines for "trigger warnings" long before it caught on in popular culture.

Fragile marxist professors and snowflake students are the ones being mocked in current usage, not children or people with disabilities.

a reply to: intrepid

Trigger fish attack divers when they're, er... TRIGGERED. Could be the origin of the term?

a reply to: ketsuko

Was that your point?

Hmmm.

Well, in your example of the autistic person that doesn't know what will trigger them, what a horrible way to live, eh? For them and everyone around them? Even more reason to show more respect than to trivialize a term.

And in your "example' regarding PSTD, you've missed the point completely in your rush to make the facts fit your conclusion.

No one is suggesting that anyone "cede" control, merely, that we control ourselves not to use terms that regard serious subjects in our trivial, crappy little arguments here. You're trying to take a straightforward discussion regarding some basic human modes of compassion and understanding, and turn it into some half-baked complaint about trying to control everyone around you SIMPLY because we suggest that one use common decency.

Capiche?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid

I agree with you. It's one of the reasons I refuse to use the word, the other being that it's completely overused and cliché.

And that is all this thread is about. Yet we see already many jumping in defense of it's use by blaming those who they use it upon.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: intrepid

"Oh, did my words bruise your soul?"

"Oh, does that mean you're offended?"

"Oh, did my action leave you in distress?"

"Oh, does this leave you with discomfort?"

"Oh, so that's what it looks like to get burned?"


Just throwing out some replacement ideas..

I always thought they meant "butthurt"

they did 10 years ago...

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid

I agree with you. It's one of the reasons I refuse to use the word, the other being that it's completely overused and cliché.

And that is all this thread is about. Yet we see already many jumping in defense of it's use by blaming those who they use it upon.

As usual, the message is that whenever language is used to stand up for the individual rights of groups that authoritarians love to plow over, why, we're just whining and complaining and giving words too much power ... as opposed to the folks whining and crying in this thread over what other people say to them.

a reply to: angeldoll

Ah hyperbole! Good to see you too.

My point is that I had a roommate who was attacked in college, and she started taking the modern triggered route about everything. Everything in her personal, and then external, environment had to be molded to suit her. This is also modern snowflakism. Since she decided that she could only trust her father and her boyfriend, it meant that she got upset if any of the rest of the women in the house had their fathers or boyfriends or any other male people around, even in common areas.

The modern terminology is that she would get "triggered" by the trauma of her attack.

At some point, you are expected to understand that not everywhere in the world can become man-free except for your boyfriend and your father. You have to begin the healing process somewhere, and you don't do it by running away constantly by those things that make you uncomfortable. At some point, you have to begin to work through the process of being exposed to those things that make you uncomfortable or upset or resign yourself to living a very restricted life.

And before you accuse me of "knowing nothing, Jon Snow" because that seems to be the sum total of your argument, I went through that process myself after an incident I went through.

Faulty generalization and appeals to emotion.

People that have suffered trauma are sometimes altered for the short-term or the long-term.

How sad it is that their expressions for the need of normal human understanding and compassion get twisted into lies about controlling others and everything around them. How sad that personal tragedy is used for points in political stuntage.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Grambler

I would like an answer from a better educated man...

Well your talking to the wrong guy if you are looking for better educated.

Now if you are looking for a more rotund guy, I may be who you are seeking.

a reply to: Grambler

... so you're saying you're well-rounded?

Don't feel rained on.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid

I agree with you. It's one of the reasons I refuse to use the word, the other being that it's completely overused and cliché.

And that is all this thread is about. Yet we see already many jumping in defense of it's use by blaming those who they use it upon.

As usual, the message is that whenever language is used to stand up for the individual rights of groups that authoritarians love to plow over, why, we're just whining and complaining and giving words too much power ... as opposed to the folks whining and crying in this thread over what other people say to them.

I can't speak for others but that is not what I am doing.

I honestly don't know that I have ever used the word triggered on ATS or even outdies of it in the manner being discussed (I have used it dealing with autism).

But as I said, its not really out of respect for the people dealing with problems outlined in the OP, its because i find the word overused and kind of lame.

I think that maybe some peoples reaction on here is based on being tired of being told about offensive words.

As a collegiate debater, you would not believe the simple words or phrases I was told were offensive and cause be to lose rounds.

For example try saying "You guys ready to get started" That is a horrible offense, because it means you assume your opponents are "guys". Even if they identify as "guys" you didn't bother to ask them. Thus you lose the debate.

Don't even start with words like firemen or congressmen. In fact, the word women is sexist and should instead be spelled womyn.

Or how about this gem? We are discussing this on September 20th, right? Well I have just glorified colonialism and belittle all of the lives all those killed by it by using the greco calendar. we should instead use the Aztec calander.

Again, I don't think this is what the OP is doing, and I definitely think it is worth looking at our language and how it affectes people in ways we may not have expected. I am just providing examples of why some people may be fed up with the offended policing words.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

... so you're saying you're well-rounded?

Don't feel rained on.

I told my uncle once I was out of shape.

He says "No you're not, round is a shape"

I then had to explain to him that round is not a shape, it is an adjective that can describe a shape.

a reply to: Grambler

No, the post you are responding to has nothing to do with your traits and behaviors as witnessed by me.

In terms of the rest of your comments, yes, the words people use sometimes irritate me. I sometimes use words that irritate others. I can't see this as anything other than basic social interaction.

Every cultural era has words, terms and phrases that are considered inappropriate; it's not a new phenomenon.

Again, I can't get past the basic conundrum that folks are tired of being told what to say, and in response, they want to tell others what to say.

Humans are generally inconsistent with their rules.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So now the word triggered is a trigger for classical PTSD etc types?

No, but people who use the word in political conversations are super lame. Anyone who needs labels to make their arguments for them probably didn't have a very good argument to begin with.

In the USA political realm, "triggering" is most pronounced amongst those whom former President Obama disappointed.

It was taken up by leftist students in their flyers for their gatherings. A quick google came up with people using it to protect against "CIS male attendance" in 2014, well before any election.

"Triggering" prompted the invention of Safe Spaces, by leftist kids to avoid anything contrary to their construct.

It affects more left leaning people than the right, as evidenced by the SJW culture spotlight because they made themselves into a spectacle, and lost all meaningfulness due to silly mental hangups. they did the same to the word they hijacked;

"Tiggered"

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: angeldoll

Ah hyperbole! Good to see you too.

My point is that I had a roommate who was attacked in college, and she started taking the modern triggered route about everything. Everything in her personal, and then external, environment had to be molded to suit her. This is also modern snowflakism. Since she decided that she could only trust her father and her boyfriend, it meant that she got upset if any of the rest of the women in the house had their fathers or boyfriends or any other male people around, even in common areas.

The modern terminology is that she would get "triggered" by the trauma of her attack.

At some point, you are expected to understand that not everywhere in the world can become man-free except for your boyfriend and your father. You have to begin the healing process somewhere, and you don't do it by running away constantly by those things that make you uncomfortable. At some point, you have to begin to work through the process of being exposed to those things that make you uncomfortable or upset or resign yourself to living a very restricted life.

And before you accuse me of "knowing nothing, Jon Snow" because that seems to be the sum total of your argument, I went through that process myself after an incident I went through.

Jon Snow! I love it. lol! good one!

You see, I know hundreds of people with PTSD, acquired from incidences of either Combat, Rape and sexual assault, or Car crashes. NONE of them, as in ZERO of those people expect to change their external environment to accommodate their disorder. They do know to try to avoid those things,smells, sounds, places as much as possible.

AS far as "at some point they have to begin the process", !!!! well that is about the most naïve thing I've ever heard.

(I typed a bunch of stuff out for you to try to digest everything they do in efforts to get the damn albatross off their backs, but I removed it. It's like watching a pearl roll down the street into the sewer.



You don't understand why everybody can't all be as fabulous as you are. Period.

Run along now. Lick your wounds.

I totally agree Intrepid, it is highly probably many of these SJW's are actually on the spectrum.

Perhaps we can turn this around the other way.

What possible value is there in the constant use of the word "triggered" here in the discussions at ATS?

It's not appropriate except as an irritant. (And notably, I'm including myself in this.)

It communcates zero factual information in a discussion. It's merely a snide cutting way to avoid an argument, much in the same way "snowflake," "SJW," "safe space" and the rest of the garbage is.

Particularly when both "left and right" members here qualify under all those terms ...

What's the discussion value in these usages?

a reply to: intrepid

It stems from people trying to be abrasive and non PC, like the alt right movement wants to be. That way they can claim you're a snowflake if something sets you off.

Basically, it's just internet trolling. And a good way to tell if someone has something worth saying, by seeing if they use the phrase or not.