Some conservatives are known for using simple-minded but harmful vocabulary in their rhetoric, especially online. They have a schoolyard bully-like tendency to simply cry ‘snowflake’ and mockingly ask “Why are you so triggered?” in response to many of the serious arguments liberals attempt to make on the internet. This enables them to disregard any of the substance of their liberal opponent’s arguments, while simultaneously attacking them as being ‘too weak.’ According to these right-wingers, it is impossible to form a logical argument while incorporating one’s personal feelings, and cold-hard facts alone should be the only evidence appealed to. I happen to believe this is completely false. In fact, empathy has been shown to be key to conflict diffusion, and thus, online conflicts, particularly political arguments, could stand to benefit from increased civility if both participants were to attempt to be more empathetic. Additionally, growing research is linking empathy to liberal political views, while failing to do so for right-leaning views, indicating a clear empathy gap among the parties.
Thus, it’s no surprise that these conservative cyberbullies have no problem posing the aggressive question of ‘Why are you so triggered?’ even if it means neglecting the deeply loaded etymological origins of the word. The concept of being ‘triggered’ dates back to some of the first studies of post-traumatic stress disorder after World War I. For people diagnosed with PTSD, the onset of troubling symptoms, such as feeling afraid and even having panic attacks, often occur in response to reminders of the trauma they suffered, or triggers. These triggers can include anything from loud noises to graphic content describing something related to the individual’s trauma.
By no means is the concept of being ‘triggered’ one to be taken lightly. And yet many people, especially conservatives, have made a complete mockery of the word, hurtling it around the internet carelessly with no regard to whom they may hurt in the process. Unsurprisingly, it is these same bigots that scoff at the very idea of trigger warnings or content warnings. The argument they commonly regurgitate is that, specifically in a classroom setting, trigger warnings can stifle the rigor of debates and interfere with students being able to grapple with difficult concepts.
On the contrary, though, when executed correctly, they can do just the opposite. I spoke with Tufts psychology professor Dr. Nicole DeTore, who teaches psychopathology at Tufts. DeTore believes that due to the highly polarized nature of the term ‘trigger warning,’ it may be more effective to give such a warning without using the label at all. Her personal approach is to alternatively say something like “We’re going to be talking about heavy subjects.” This effectively communicates the message without using nearly as polarizing language. As a result, she believes her students should hopefully feel less afraid to speak their minds during a class discussion but also step out if need be.
Additionally, educators should be giving trigger warnings as far in advance as possible, preferably at least a day before the class, so that students can have the time they need to consider whether they are emotionally able to handle the content to be discussed. This also helps prevent the highly stigmatized act of walking out of a class during a discussion. If this is not possible, though, it is ideal to at least give the warning before a break and allow students to come back late or not at all to avoid the potentially distressing content, something DeTore notes she does early on in the semester.
In DeTore’s experience, giving some sort of warning about potentially distressing content she plans on discussing sets the stage for more fruitful discussions about these tough topics. Rather than suppressing speech, she thinks such a warning could potentially allow participants in a discussion to be more open about their thoughts than they might have previously, knowing that a proper warning was given.
It is undoubtedly fundamental that the Tufts community and colleges in general be able to discuss uncomfortable topics in the classroom. However, we cannot forget that what one person might find merely uncomfortable might cause another person physiological or emotional distress. As someone who struggles with mental illness, I can attest to the fact that you can never really predict when you may be triggered by something. I’ve always found this difficult to navigate, particularly in classroom settings. Our professors should have a strong awareness of whether their content may be distressing to students. Thus, they should be obligated to warn us when a potentially distressing subject is going to be discussed.
Overall, the discussion of trigger warnings in the classroom is not one that caters to the needs of the ‘overly sensitive few.’ When done right, these warnings can help to foster an overall safer, more compassionate environment for everyone in the classroom. This is something that every member of the Tufts community and beyond should keep in mind when engaging in discussions about potentially upsetting topics. As humans, trying to respect one another is the least we can do.
