Log in

No account? Create an account

The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
signal boost: on warnings at vividcon by arduinna
children of dune - leto 1
Gakked from [personal profile] morgandawn, whom I'm going to just wholesale quote since she did the summarizing and added another link for context:
[personal profile] arduinna used last year's Vividcon vid show to come up with numbers on how many of the 38 premiering vids would require trigger warnings (as they are being defined by some advocating warnings): 38 of 39 vids would have required warnings. You can see her breakdown, the criteria she applied, and participate in the discussion about what it all means in her journal here.

...this has it's own anonymeme? Really? Really?

Posted at Dreamwidth: http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/32705.html. | You can reply here or there. | comment count unavailable comments

  • 1
...this has it's own anonymeme? Really? Really?

ugh I don't even know what my point even IS

not to be a complete dick or anything, but uhhhhhh okay the Other Half of The Egg is epileptic. I don't like loud noises or icky monsters. They make me twitch and want to hide under things in the non-cute, unhumorous way.

Isn't there -- I mean, I guess my feeling here is that if there is a situation ....why be there? Isn't that where personal responsibility takes over? I mean, I just. I don't get why you would chose to be part of a segment of fandom where you know the chances are high that you will induce a seizure/migraine/trigger?

I guess our coping strategies are like, aimed at avoiding situations instead of trying to modify them or whatever, and I think I understand that people want to go and be with their co-fans even at risk of triggers but ... I don't know, dude, if I went to Vividcon or if Amy went to Vividcon, it would be with the understanding that this might not be an awesome idea all around. I guess warnings would be helpful? But I don't feel it's the vidder's responsibility to warn for everything that might set someone off. COLORS can set someone off.

I feel like as a disabled person it's my responsibility to be proactive about my own mental and physical health, and that means that sometimes I have to say things like, Well, I really wish I could go to X but it's going to be really crowded and they're going to be really loud, so I chose not to go and risk a panic attack, in just the same way I would say, I would love to have that delicious looking food but it will make me break into hives, so I'll have to pass.

Re: ugh I don't even know what my point even IS

I feel like as a disabled person it's my responsibility to be proactive about my own mental and physical health

Seconded. It's not fun to have to pass on things because of the potential for problems but that's life. T'ain't fair and nothing's going to change that. For the times I go ahead anyway, I plan for it. And I also plan for when I've overestimated myself.

I appreciate warnings, makes that planning easier to do, but I don't expect them.

Re: ugh I don't even know what my point even IS

Yeah, the physical triggers part does make me blink a lot. I don't watch enormous numbers of vids, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any modern ones that didn't involve at least some quick cuts. It's rather the nature of the medium in the digital age.

It does sound like there is some stuff they could do to accommodate people, though. For example, they apparently still use tapes, and thus there's potentially a lot of people competing for access to the copies for non-vid room viewing. It seems like changing to digital would make it easy to whip off enough copies that everyone who has physical or mental limitations that keep them out of the movie-style showings can have access right away. Plus that way people could reference specific warning lists and skip right to the ones that are okay for them, without disturbing other people by trying to pop in and out of the room every five minutes.

...this has it's own anonymeme? Really? Really?

Whut?!?! Really...I don't even...

This discussion just raises my hackles in a LOT of ways...

The whole thing may need a caveat that the vidders make a Good Faith Effort to highlight some triggers in particular, but due to the nature of the source materials for these videos, they are all very likely to have some violent material. Similarly, they're likely to all have some flashing lights and fast cuts, since it is the nature of most vids to be composed of multiple scenes cut together in rapid sequence.

In the end, the decision to view or not to view is on the viewer. As adults, they assume the risk. Honestly, if VVC has a real criteria that they actually follow to issue detailed warnings? They're doing better than the MPAA which is at best, vague.

They're doing better than the MPAA which is at best, vague.

And sometimes wrong. Or was it someone else who decided March of the Penguins was family film? Most depressing thing I've seen in years.

[I've been computerless for most of this debate, which is apparently huger than my ability to link-follow, so I preface this by saying I'm sure I'm missing some context, and feel free to tell me where to go.]

[Er, in terms of links. Not- yes.]

Okay, so 38 out of 39 might have required warnings. Would it be so bad for the list of vids to have, say, an asterisk on anything whose content might be triggering and a plus sign for anything that might be visually triggering?

  • 1