In favour of "content warnings" rather than "trigger warnings"?

[waiting4ds]

I'm starting this thread on the back of this BBC article which quotes Ralph Feinnes saying theatre "trigger warnings" should stop:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68267257

He says theatre should "shock and disturb".

Well I do dislike the term "trigger warning" - it's naff. I'm happy with a good old fashioned Content Warning.

But as for doing away with them altogether ... no ... not unless you want to block people who have suffered trauma from accessing theatre.

A friend of mine recently suffered a major trauma and now finds it very difficult to watch TV, visit the theatre/cinema etc., unless she knows that the content will steer clear of certain topics. There are helpful 'wiki' websites, and friends' sometimes watch programmes first and advise her. However, Ralph Feinnes doesn't seem to give a hoot about how accessible his productions are, which is a shame.

Maybe content warnings are fine but it’s a bit ridiculous that a Sound of Music production needs to warn about Nazis etc. Everything seems to be a “trigger” these days.

Content or trigger warnings are actually really unhelpful. It's a form of "avoidance" which can make MH conditions worse in the longer term so I don't think society should be adopting these as the norm. It is also very infantilising. And I say this as someone with trauma and a serious anxiety disorder where I get "triggered".

They've also become far too widely used so there are trigger or content warnings about almost everything.

I don't think it matters at all what they are called. Doesn't change what they are which is the issue.

Honestly these “trigger” warnings seem to extend to everything these days.

take them off and let people read a blurb/synopsis and make the decision for themselves