Board Thread:Help!/@comment-43874324-20200702151414/@comment-45692830-20200704234252

So let's be clear about a few things. The issue in question is not "oh it's a fictional disease" it's "oh, it's an irregular pattern made up of small objects", to equivocate between the two is an odd rhetorical shift that misrepresents the issue. I know some people have had issues with Tim Shaw, though I have not. This isn't a well documented phobia, simply because the things that trigger it are rather rare except in extreme cases (like the one in the article I'm about to link), but there's still some literature on it. Secondly, while it's certainly subjective as to whether you as an individual are distressed by a picture or a specific description of content, it's not subjective that there are many people who meet these criteria. (Technically the term used is "intersubjective", in that the truth value does not vary from subject to subject, but the truth value is dependent on the existence of subjects - ie, if we wiped out the human race, there would be no subjects that could meet the criteria.)

Thirdly, to object to these things on the basis that they're intersubjective would be self defeating in the most spectacular fashion. By analogy, it's an intersubjective fact that there are Doctor Who fans, but it's a subjective fact as to whether you as an individual are a Doctor Who fan.

And, of course, we come to the benefits of content warnings. For people who have experienced trauma, the best treatment is reintegration with their normal life. Avoidance of "triggers" can be problematic, depending on the specifics, but not inherently, but even given that, the proper approach is to slowly manage them in a clinical setting, not haphazardly reintroduce them. Content warnings allow people who have experienced trauma or who have phobias to control their reintegration to society or avoid the few things that set them off.

With all that said, I'm interested in seeing the thread you mentioned.