this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
11 points (73.9% liked)
Shows and TV
373 readers
107 users here now
Open discussion of Media / Shows / Television
- Be nice
- Don't go off topic
- Don't rage farm
Other communities
We are still open to mod application, please comment on this post: https://lemm.ee/post/40675177
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think people who complain about content warnings fail to understand what they are for lol. They're so people can make decisions about what media engage with on any given day to manage their own health. No one is saying that any type of content shouldn't be depicted or is bad or needs to be watered down. It's not the same as other rating systems or anti obscenity movements. It's about viewers being able to enjoy their favorite gory bleak violent reality bending upsetting content when they're completely sure they are in a good headspace to watch it.
Isn't that what ratings are for?
Ideally, but usually ratings don't tell you much about what is inside. The ratings systems that existed in the US in the 90s and 2000s when Sopranos was on were still pretty entwined with a culture of shame and moral panic about CORRUPTING THE CHILDREN. It was definitely still related to religion and ideas like "you can't put that on tv!!" or "that song is bad and listening to it makes you bad." HBO was not on regular tv partly for that reason. For Edie Falco's generation, I suspect that kind of thing was much worse and more entrenched. So I think older people equate any warnings about the content art with movements to limit what can or should be depicted be in art.
I'm opposed to trigger warnings for the same reason I'm opposed to participation trophies. Part of maturing is learning that uncomfortable things happen in the world, and that you will not always be successful.
If you don't want to see uncomfortable things, perhaps you should not be watching The Sopranos, or Sons of Anarchy, or Yellowstone, or Hill Street Blues, or MASH. Stick with Disney+ (but maybe not, I watched Lion King last night in honor of the passing of James Earl Jones and cried like a baby).
Serious question, where do trigger warnings end? I am triggered by any father showing approval for their son. (Hell I'm choking up just typing that). My wife and daughter will tell you that no matter what: TV, Movie, Audio Book, or even commercial, it will destroy me, sometimes for a few minutes sometimes longer. I have never seen a "Warning! This show contains graphic fatherly approval of their children that may be upsetting to some viewers" I would never think of making an issue of it either. My emotional fragility is my issue to deal with. Not someone else's.
I think you're missing my point. Being upset, disturbed, uncomfortable or moved emotionally by something is not what a trigger means. The word has been watered down significantly. I am explicitly referring to its original usage - mental health symptoms which could throw off a person's wellbeing. That is what trigger warnings are for.
Edit for typos.
I'm sorry, which part of "destroys me" don't you understand? Do I need to spell out that on more the one occasion I contemplated a bullet in the head because of those things?
Just because you are unable to relate to such a thing does not mean my mental health is not negatively impacted.
So I ask again, where do you place the limit on what is deserving a trigger warning?
This is a clear troll. You have a good day now.
I love it. I don't understand your mental health struggles so I'm going to resort to name calling.