look I do not want to have this argument in the notes of a 5k+ post bc I will get crucified and so will the person who I'm arguing with
but see I made this post about the use of language and said I thought that words like rape or abuse or suicide are extremely necessary and that they can be uncomfortable words but that's because they're uncomfortable things?
someone in the replies said, quote, "that doesn't excuse y'all reblogging this without trigger warnings"
and like, far be it from me, a guy who spent a non-zero amount of time having panic attacks if I saw Chewbacca merch and once had a day-long dissociative episode because I saw someone carrying a guitar, to say what acceptable triggers are or how people should respond to them
but in this instance. I'm pretty clear that yeah actually it does excuse reblogging it without trigger warnings
because in this post I didn't at any point actually talk about rape, abuse or suicide, I talked about the words "rape", "abuse" and "suicide".
in fact in the original post I don't think I want into any more detail than I would in the tags "tw rape" "tw abuse" or "tw suicide"
which gets under my skin, right, because while there's no problem with choosing to trigger tag that post of you think it's helpful, demanding that this is such an Obviously Triggering post there's a moral obligation to tag it (because it contains the Bad Words) is uhhhhh kind of exactly what I'm talking about?
Language here is mistaken for the thing. Saying the word "rape" is construed as unambiguously harmful in a way that talking about rape without naming it isn't.
I have literally heard people begin to describe a rape, a domestic violence case, a murder, a suicide, in those terms - then stop themselves, change their language, and carry on describing these really specific, upsetting experiences with the clear understanding that they've removed the Problematic Part (now that they're saying "special cuddle" and "adult time" instead of "rape").
Part of what I'm reacting against in that post is exactly that - the idea behind the cutesy euphemisms and the censorship of important words like "death" and "rape" (and frankly "lesbian". and "sex" and "kink" and "porn"), which is this tendency to displace the discomfort caused by the word onto the word itself.
Obviously everyone's experience of trauma is different. But as a survivor I'm not triggered or disturbed by the word "rape", I'm triggered and disturbed by the act of rape, and potentially by conversations which describe or explore or evoke that act or experience.
And frankly I find it hard to believe that a significant plurality, let alone a majority, of people with PTSD connected to rape or abuse are so sensitive to the Word Itself that they must be protected from even hearing it named.
I am particularly clear on this with "rape" and "abuse" because, as I said in the post described, those are unambiguously words coined to create purposeful discomfort, because they're words coined to recognise the harm in very common and normalised actions.
If you've experienced rape, abuse, or whatever, and the words alone for those things are deeply distressing, I'm very sorry for you. That must be awful and I wish you well.
But a lot of the time I think when people start linguistically self-censoring (not "you can't talk about this topic without a trigger warning" but "you can't use this descriptive word without a trigger warning") they're not actually reacting to a debilitating trauma response, but to the fact that hearing the word inspires discomfort, because it puts an appropriate amount of weight on the topic.
you have to trigger tag for "suicide" but not for "unalive yourself" "sewerslide" or "kys"
you have to trigger tag for "death" but not for "no longer with us" "left the world" "unalive"
you have to trigger tag for "rape" but let's be honest not for a description of having sex with someone against their will, as long as you don't call it rape.
(btw people will blame this on the Algorithm but it goes back way further, we were having this Acceptable Words Discourse on Tumblr in 2012, you know? it's definitely accelerated by algorithmic control but this list of Bad Words as a shibboleth for Caring About People is old old bullshit)
(also the idea of trigger tagging on the basis of words rather than meaning strikes me as uhhhh suboptimal? especially when it comes to words created to talk about our experiences? like maybe there's a significant textural difference between a post which uses the word "rape" in a list of words that exist, a post saying "if this happened to you it may have been rape," an exploration of survivor feminism and the political positioning of rape, a list of rape prevention and recovery resources, and a graphic rape fantasy. like any of those might be things I don't wanna see, but they're very different in relation to each other and to my trauma, you know? and not wanting to see explicit discussion of rape doesn't necessarily mean not wanting to Ever Hear The Word. but that's another conversation.)
anyway this is all academic frankly because the thing you're objecting to is that the words are in the post. bc again, trigger tags on this post entail Exactly The Same Amount Of Exploration Of These Topic as the post itself
91 notes
·
View notes