He talks about theatre specifically and mentions he agrees with what Ralph Fiennes said on the subject, so I looked up what that worthless tool said and, well, I agree.
Scrap trigger warnings for theatre audiences, says Ralph Fiennes
Audiences should be ‘shocked and disturbed’ by the impact of theatre, says Schindler’s List and Harry Potter actorwww.theguardian.com
It's this that doesn't get talked about. The clickbait websites are just monetising the issue.
I found the scene disturbing in 'A Good Man goes to War' where a character is holding a baby and it collapses into gooey flesh, it reminded me of still birth, and some of the scenes with historical era racism like a businessman harassing Bill Potts. I think Doctor Who has pushed boundaries at times for a family show.
"Viewer discretion is advised" is an americanism. For live theatre there are just age restrictions, but even that is quite recent. Often it would just say "not suitable for children" etc on the poster
You're arguing against ghosts. A vast majority of people here, even those who wish to be able to opt out of trigger warning or content warnings, agree that they should exist for the people that need them. What you seem to take umbrage with is that people are understanding of the context behind the ragebait quotes. That he's (unknowingly, it would seem) conflating trigger warning and content warning, which the publication is likely knowingly using to their advantage to farm outrage for money. If he doesn't know the difference, and nobody tells him there's a difference, how is he supposed to know to research the difference?
This is exactly what i was thinking reading this thread. If these are the context we're talking about it absolutely is a problem as it can reshape our telling of stories just to appease everyone. Warning are meant to be exactly that, warnings, not a guide on how to never make anything remotely bad.
This was certainly the case with Blink Twice recently, I didn't know anything about the plot beforehand and the trigger warning basically made clear what the whole story of the film was going to be.
Pretty much this.
Also this, probably.
Wow, I totally missed that because I was off trying to refill my popcorn before the movie started. Wife said I didn't miss anything because I came in on the shot of the lizard on the rock.
They aren't. They're(the examples posted in this thread, including Matt Smith's) are talking about stage/plays.
Sometimes I wonder if people just want to feel the catharsis of being... above someone. Like having the moral high ground, and gesturing, "See?" I mean I'm guilty of it too at times. Even us pointing out how people are being baited is also another form of it. The world feels so fucked that whenever we get the chance to get a "win", we'd take it.
You're treating him like a child who can't be responsible for his own statements (he is on video saying this, it's not a misquote), and many posters here are simply saying they agree without the further context of "for people who need them"; only a few have made that stipulation.
oh ok i misunderstood. Still the idea of a content warning is nothing new so i still dont really get the issue
How dare you. This is a very important issue for me and people close to me and you frame it in this gross manner, quoting someone responding to me. I've both had and seen the effects of reliving trauma through triggering content. It's not a "win" to argue against this. I can only suggest you learn some empathy. These are his words:
I can only give an adult giving a public interview enough respect to believe he knows what he is saying when he uses a specific term like "trigger warning".
I apologize, it wasn't meant to be an indictment towards you or what you're saying. I was referring more to the drive-bys that went straight into the most uncharitable interpretations after just seeing the headline. That was insensitive of me.
