This is one of the best threads in a while about the overlap of language, lived experience, and the dangers of adopting a group’s shorthand without the context.
What’s wild is how often this happens. The word “triggered” has been used and stretched and abused in similar ways; specific academic terms like “intersectional” as well.
I think one of the most important ideas in that thread is the idea of “unnecessary, performative over-examination” that reactionaries love to target. All of those words in their context were created by and for people whose situations made the examination necessity for survival.
“Trigger” doesn’t mean something scary or annoying or offensive, it means something (even innocuous) that activates a person’s learned trauma responses — the tools that allowed them to survive in dangerous or abusive scenarios.
The fact that our society has a huge number of people who’ve been sexually assaulted or abused means sexual violence is a common trigger; context stripped, though, “trigger” can be used (and dismissed) as “I find that repugnant.” A matter of taste and freedom.
That one hits particularly close to home; a number of dear friends have been diagnosed with PTSD or related conditions and understanding their “triggers” and knowing how to navigate them is a critical tool for healthy life and healing.
Circling back to @JournoJoshua’s thread, I’m incredibly grateful he took the time to unpack the latest term to suffer that context stripping — and explain the broader dynamic at play.