It’s because they’re blatantly misinterpreting them, and incorrectly telling me how I’m using them. Miri explains it all.
What’s gaslighting is when we say, “We need trigger warnings in order to be able to engage with content rather than automatically shut down,” and you respond, “You’re just trying to avoid engaging with difficult content.”
If people are telling you that they are trying to engage with trauma-related material and you insist that they’re actually saying that they want to avoid it–or literally ban it from being taught–you are gaslighting them. You are insisting that you know better than they do what’s inside their own heads. You are pretending that they said something other than what they actually said, making them doubt their own thoughts and words.
Exactly! When I’m going to talk about icky stuff, I warn people “We’re about to talk about icky stuff,” and then…we talk about icky stuff. It’s incredibly annoying when obnoxious people try to tell me that we use trigger warnings to avoid talking about the icky stuff, when it’s exactly the opposite.
I can’t say that I’m being successfully gaslit, though, because I’m confident that I know what my own intent is, and I mainly come away feeling that the complainer is full of shit. It does seem to be effectively persuading a lot of bystanders who just want to despise anyone who has respect for the experiences of the people they are teaching, though.
But… that’s not what gaslighting means.
It’s convincing to the people who really really want to be convinced by it.
@Holms
You’ll have to find an authoritative source, then, because what Miri is describing is pretty much textbook gaslighting: Denial of the observations regarding the emotional state of the person with the emotions.
I must admit I was bit confused by the term “gaslighting”. From Ye Pfffft! of All Knowledge:
It’s an old term — apparently originating c.1938 — albeit one I was not familiar with.
The above description is, I agree, essentially what the quote in the OP described as “You are pretending that they said something other than what they actually said, making them doubt their own thoughts and words.” The confusion is perhaps in shifting meanings of “you” and “they”: The “you” in the just-quoted inline quote is the person / agency claiming , and the “they” (who is the in that embedded quote) is the person / agency issuing the trigger warning.
That is, the claim being debunked is essentially . That claim is nonsense — and gaslighting. As poopyhead says, trigger warnings do not avoid the content, only warn the upcoming content may be distributing.
Read Miri’s post. She’s very careful to distinguish arguments that are gaslighting from those that aren’t.
If your comment in #1 is meta joke, Holms, it’s brilliant.
If not, Miri defines the term pretty well in her article. Repeated false statements about someone else’s experience are gas lighting. If I told PZ over and over that he didn’t actually talk about icky stuff in his class, I’d be gaslighting. If I claim that his use of trigger warnings is psychologically harmful or advocating trigger warnings creates a chilling effect, I would not be even if I were wrong.
Trigger warning: trigger warnings, people complaining about trigger warnings, people who get irritated by people about trigger warnings, and people responding to people who get irritated by people about trigger warnings.
I’m new to this whole SJW thing, but I’m really confused as to why there seems to be some sort of controversy around the whole “trigger warning” thing. I mean, how is it any different from saying “spoiler alert,” or “NSFW” or “the following program contains x,y, and z; viewer discretion is advised?”
That’s exactly what it is. A recent PBS Nova on 9/11 terrorism 15 years later starts with “The following program contains graphic images, which may not be suitable for all audiences. Viewer discretion is advised.” A warning to let people know that what will follow may be upsetting on some level.
Those opposing said warning are often bullies, and want to trigger people to make themselves feel superior on some level, usually “this doesn’t bother me, I am strong” Vulcan asshole thinking.
I guess what I don’t understand is: how does the fact that some people choose to use trigger warning prevent bullies from triggering people on purpose if they’re so inclined? Is there a movement to require trigger warnings by popular content providers – e.g., your YouTube/Reddit/whatever comment will get deleted if you don’t include one? Or are there situations where someone can label someone else’s content with a trigger warning? Or am I just being naive in thinking that I must be missing something because people couldn’t possibly be getting so upset over something so trivial?
@Sarah A, there’s been a ton written about it in the last few years. Primarily the discussion has been focused on whether professors should be encouraged/required to use them in college courses. The discussion tends to be thoroughly muddled, with people not bothering to distinguish between using trigger warnings, urging people to use trigger warnings and requiring people to use trigger warnings.
The Coddling of the American Mind from the Atlantic last year is probably the highest profile piece opposing trigger warnings. Googling the title should find you a large number of responses, here are a couple I liked:
“Saying Trigger Warnings “Coddle the Mind” Completely Misses the Point”
Straw Freshman
As much as it’s beside the point yet again, I’m on board with the confusion over dragging gaslighting into this as a term.
I have a feeling there’s already a term for what’s being described there. But I can’t really think of it right now. It does seem to be a pretty standard rhetorical dodge, though, to presume and impugn someone’s ‘real’ motives for making a particular argument or taking a particular argument. In the school yard/parliament it’d be “You’re just jealous!” and similar attacks. It’s like a kind of well poisoning I suppose. A cheap and probably crowd pleasing slur, not necessarily meant to confuse you of your own thoughts but score a lazy and distracting point with the right sort of audience (even if there’s no one watching).
I consider gaslighting as being an overall strategy with specific and personal application. Thus I couldn’t attach it to phraseology like that without context (especially when it reminds me of the aforementioned simple, lazy rhetoric). If you were stuck in, say, a long winded attrition grind with some mansplaining sealion then yes, I think you might be able to say such things are a sign of a person gaslighting you. In a more anonymous, drive by internet argument wouldn’t think it fits.
That might be where collective gaslighting comes in. But that sounds more to me like someone trying to confuse a group about what it thinks, or trying to confuse one group about what another group thinks. Which happens, but I’d probably file that under disinformation or propaganda and even good old straw-man tactics and libels.
I guess it makes a certain kind of sense that a therapist would see things in these terms, rather than argument and debate type ones. Or maybe I’m over thinking it.
In any case, fun with words folks!
Bingo. Never underestimate how trivial a thing people will choose to make an issue of. “What? You expect me to show a modicum of concern for the feelings of others? ARGLEBARGLEARGH!!!!! *frothing*”
There needs to be a trigger warning for all “anti-PC”, “anti-SJW” and “MRA” types:
*Trigger warning*
We sometimes take into account the existence of other human beings. We know that this disgusts, enrages, frightens, and alienates some racist, homophobic, sexist, and bigoted persons who feel this infringes on “muh freedoms”.
I’ve been an adjunct English professor for sixteen years (Yeah, I know. Low pay, terrible courses. Fun. Fun.) and I’ve never had any problem with generic trigger warnings. My Classical Tradition in Literature syllabus ends with “Another Note: This class will cover a variety of topics that may make some uncomfortable. These include matricide, patricide, fratricide, infanticide and all the other –icides, rape, incest, cannibalism, homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, slavery, child molestation, incest, all forms of human excretion, castration, blasphemy, and atheism. If you are easily offended or find any of concepts personally troubling, please, drop this course and find another section. All the authors we will be covering in class address at least two, if not more, of these topics.” Before I added that I just gave everyone a heads up we’d be covering a lot of controversial and inflammatory topics. My big gripe comes with text specific trigger warnings which seems to be the direction we’re headed. It, in my opinion, kills the surprise of discovering a new story. I’m doing Oedipus next Wednesday. Stating, “Oh yeah, He kills his dad, marries, his mom and gouges out his eyes” kills the very purpose of spectacle as Aristotle defines it. You can say, “But that work is two millennia old. They should know the plot.” That’s all well and good until you consider the simple fact I had to explain Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father to the bulk of the class. Not learned scholars of even pop culture… Text specific trigger warnings merely serve as spoilers to blunt the emotional impact of a text. Imagine, before reading Blood Meridian, seeing sticker on the front that catalogues the grocery list of horrors contained within. McCarthy’s book’s impact is in the never ending depravity of its expanses. Saying “Hold on to your seats, kids. This is gonna get gross,” is one thing. Spoilers are another. It’s the difference between the old Parental Advisory stickers on CDs and a catalogue of the profanity contained within.
@quints #11: Thanks, that’s helpful. Oddly enough, in spite of having spent nearly half my life in higher ed, I’ve only ever encountered trigger warnings on blog posts and such (maybe it’s because I’m in STEM?), so I was under the impression that it was primarily an internet phenomenon. Am I seriously out of touch, or are the authors of the first article (and those like them) just blowing a few isolated incidents out of proportion in order to justify anti-PC pushback and absolve them from having to take those uppity students seriously?
Given that the evidence is pretty much all anecdotes (one or two schools have policies that could be interpreted to require warnings), it’s definitely being blown out of proportion.
thelordofpolka @ 15
You mentioned incest twice.
@thelordofpolka, #15, “…kills the very purpose of spectacle as Aristotle defines it.”
The spectacle would be watching the performance. When learning the literature, the spectacle is only a part of the lesson, the methodology used, symbolism used, etc are also discussed, turning it into a lesson, not a spectacle.
I used to give classes in the treatment of battlefield injuries and refer to specific case studies, some of which included graphic imagery of the victims, their care, first aid in progress, etc. In some cases, the class included people present while those injuries were being treated and they personally knew the individual being treated.
Needless to say, I included a trigger warning message at the beginning and when each case was being brought up. It still upset some, one becoming quite vociferous, to near insubordination levels, until I reminded him, that man was my friend as well and I was the senior treating NCO at the scene.
Failing to give a trigger warning, especially in cases like the above, can very well run the risk of a sever mental breakdown and even self harm inflicted by someone who suffered from a severely traumatic experience.
When I’ve given that warning, I explained what was to come, some immediately left, others, left when they recognized the description. I had people standing by to receive them, hell, for a few of those cases, I had people ready to receive me after class.
What had to be covered, well, it had to be covered. No reason to send someone into a meltdown or worse, just because they were present the first time.
I assume the term “gaslight” comes from the play Gas Light (1938), and two later movies. One of the movies was titled “Gaslight,” directed by George Cukor, and released in 1938. That film stars Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer. (The Pppffff confirms that “gaslighting” came from the play, though I would bet the movies had more to do with its adoption.)
Short plot synopsis: a woman’s husband slowly manipulates her into believing that she is going insane.
There have been other similar stories in film with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane coming immediately to mind.
Correction: the Cukor film came out in 1944, the play in 1938.
@robo, yes, the play came out in 1930, two films were released after, 1940 and 1944, with Bergman being in the 1944 film.
Muz
The word is mansplaining, you used is a part of your reply and it’s perfectly adequate. What Miri describes is not gaslighting.
Which I realize is not the point of the conversation she wanted to have, so it’s inappropriate that so much of the comment space is being taken by discussions of the term. But on the other hand, she is misusing a very useful and descriptive word and if there is never a good time to say that people are misusing a word it will soon start encompassing everything anyone wishes to and become meaningless.
@Beatrice, I suspect it’s a combination of “mansplaining” and gas lighting.
In the case of some traumatic events, mansplaining would certainly well account for the issue. However, in the example that I provided in training service members, there was no mansplaining, we were talking about training in treating trauma sustained in a military environment, where some (including myself) were personally involved in and knew the casualties. In that, gas lighting would be closer, as some would try to deny our emotions (It isn’t that bad, get over it, it’s not a big deal, etc), where we were emotionally conflicted or otherwise emotionally involved.
I could give the example that I gave more details, but the trigger warnings should and rightfully so, entail a full page or so. They were case studies, some of which shook me up, as I both presented the cases and was personally involved and was close to those killed and injured. Due to the necessity of training and the environment, our trigger warnings also included mentioning *who* the case studies were on, at the beginning of the day and before each case, with time allowed for those who felt it necessary to depart.
Several that I presented were notable for a lack of my usual colorful use of language, occasional odd idiom to force a listener to remember a key point and two, delivered in a monotone. It was the best that I could do, as I couldn’t excuse myself and present life saving information.
After, I spent 45 minutes in a dark closet, alternately meditating and crying. With plenty of visitors to check in.
To deny that emotional conflict is gas lighting at best, disrespect of the other at worst.
So, the only example I can see of trigger warnings being used to avoid content, versus giving the consumer of the content a heads up, is the 2013 committee at Oberlin (referred to in the Atlantic article).
Are there really any concrete examples of trigger warnings being required as a way to *avoid* troubling content? I sure don’t know of any…
I have seen people on twitter talking about students using trigger warnings to decide to skip a particular lecture – I think Ana Mardoll, though I might be misremembering. But that was in a context where the students would still lose out on marks if they failed to do the work, while acknowledging that in many university courses you don’t actually have to know all the content to get a good grade. The specific example mentioned was a law student planning to go into, say, property law, and deciding to skip a lecture on sexual assault law in an overview module – so they accept they might take a hit to their grades, but figure it’s worth it to avoid a triggering topic that’s not going to be relevant to their profession.
Funny, I never needed an excuse to skip lectures when I was in school.. (;
thelordofpolka @ 15
I’ve heard that argument a few times. But let’s drill down into some of the assumptions of it and the assessment thereof.
Assumptions:
1. That the students want surprise. That they find surprise to be fun and entertaining and interesting. However, many people do not like to be surprised. Some people find surprises disorienting and that can take away not only from the enjoyment, but also the comprehension of the material. Even for people who think they like to be surprised, at least one study has found that knowing the end of a story enhances the enjoyment of it rather than spoiling it.
2. That the ending or twist or what have you is a surprise. There are people who have lived experiences very similar to what they are reading/watching in the story. Far from being surprised, they may see what’s coming a mile away, getting more and more uncomfortable as they see a situation being set up that is all too exactly what they went through, hoping it doesn’t end the way their situation did but apprehensive that it might. I’ve heard a lot of people say things like “but it takes the shock value of being surprised by the (thing) to make it really have an impact.” That’s simply patronizing as fuck to assume that this is a new experience that your students have never been exposed to and need to be shocked by it to understand that bad things happen in the world. Some of them have lived through that horror already, thank you very much, and have no need to be shocked by it popping up in their college class to know it exists.
Going to assessment: What is it you really want them to get from the material? What is the learning outcome? “Being surprised by the (thing)” isn’t an actual class objective. It takes a little more thinking to get to the bottom of what you’re trying to accomplish. I’ve gone through this exercise several times when doing various kinds of physical/testing/etc. accommodations and it’s hard, but so worth it. For example, I have an assignment for which students have to go collect plants and identify them. But I had a student with mobility issues that made that impossible, so I had to drill down into what the assignment was for, and figure out that the core was “demonstrate proper use of a botanical key” and then figure out how to accomplish that in a different way. And that was a benefit to all of the students, because then I was able to better articulate exactly what i wanted to see from them and why. Same thing with a story: if the real goal is to be able to discuss issue (x), then it doesn’t matter whether they are surprised by seeing (x) appear or not. And if being surprised by it causes a student to temporarily lose their bearings, then they’re being sabotaged into being unable to discuss (x), when they may have done quite well at it in a different setting.
Stepped content notes might be a way to find a balance between, if you really don’t want to spell everything out. Something like “The material we will be reading this semester contains some physical violence. If you think this is an issue for you and you would like more information, please send me a quick email and I will provide more detail on which assignment and a description of the type of violence included.” The negative is that it still puts the onus on the student to announce to you that they have a problem, and they might not want to do that, but maybe it’s an intermediate step to see how that affects the classroom/discussions/papers. Or you could put your syllabus online and put the more explicit information behind spoiler bars so students could choose whether to read that part or not.
Trigger warnings do not necessarily reveal the plot. “Abandoned prince unknowingly kills his father and marries his mother, blinds himself as punishment” is not a trigger warning. “Rejection, murder, incest, self mutilation” is.
#5
I read it, and came to the conclusion that the definition she uses for gaslighting is different to what it has been for a long time. Not that that in itself is bad, organic language and all that, but the definition she uses is decidedly non-standard.
#6
I was not joking. As already mentioned, the definition used is an odd one, as is the definition you use at #6. Beatrice has it at #23: mansplaining is what is going on. However, I would add to her comment that it is already so overussed in certain conversation as to render it meaningless – simply disagreeing with someone about something is dubbed gaslighting sometimes. I’m not exaggerating when I say that either; I was once informed that disagreeing over the meaning of a word is gaslighting.
And the word in question? Gaslighting.
Back in the stone ages (ok, 25 years ago) when I took some community college courses, I was given a “trigger warning” of sorts. Personally, I thought it was the instructor being a nice person, not the sign of some insidious plot to wussify the nation. In a speech class we were giving persuasive talks, and I had chosen pro-choice- in the early 90’s it was still pretty heated. I had used myself as an example, the introduction speaking of a 15 year old girl feeling suicidal at the prospect of giving birth and having the support of her parents to take her to a clinic out of town, then at the end revealing I was the girl being spoken of. The next day the teacher informed me another student would be doing an anti-abortion speech with a lot of graphic images, and told me I could choose to take the day off from the class if I wished. There wasn’t any real reason I -had- to be there, since I’d already given my presentation. I went to the student hub and worked on another class. I would have willingly watched the presentation even if it triggered a bit (mostly because it would have been false appeals to emotion) but I thought it was kind of him to give me an out.
I’ve read someone, somewhere on the Internet, making the case for the use of “content indication” rather than “trigger warning”, since the author doesn’t get to decide what may be triggering a reader.
I didn’t come across it by name in college, but one of my Freshmen Lit/Comp classes read A Clockwork Orange and the instructor had an alternate assignment if folks didn’t want to watch and discuss the film adaptation. I also recall a psych instructor talking about the brain and what we learn about how it works from when it is injured and giving us a heads-up about gore before going into detail, so I can imagine that the biological and social science parts of the STEM field are aware of the concept, even if they don’t use the name.
I went to college 15 years ago, and I don’t think we ever called these things ‘trigger warnings’, but they served the same purpose: the idea that some things are discomforting in ways that distract from learning rather than provoking learning, and good professors need to address that discomfort so students can learn.
SQB
I’ve seen “content note” used pretty commonly. It seems to skip some of the ire that’s directed at trigger warnings, and is somewhat more accurate; things can be a problem even if they’re not triggers of the sort associated with PTSD.
Derek Vandivere
Well, no ;). It’s not that long since I was at uni, and there were plenty of people missing classes for all sorts of reasons. I skipped reading at least one of the set texts in a literature module because we were assessed on an essay on one of the three texts, of our choice, and I’d seen Moliere was on the list and knew I liked him, so focused my energy on that one. I really don’t see what the problem would be with a student in a similar module deciding to skip one of the texts because the themes were ones they felt they couldn’t cope with or didn’t want to deal with.
Certainly seems a lot more valid than the morning lectures that were generally half empty because they happened after a popular club night.
thelordofpolka
Which is exactly why you should have them. Because the emotional impact may mean “curling up mostly unable to react in any reasonable way because it throws you back right into a situation of utter helplessness. ”
I accept that my personal triggers are quite individual and that I won’t get any trigger warnings, but it makes me more than happy to accommodate people for whom there are helpful ones.
Also everything carlie said.
SQB:
Not only that, but sometimes I, as the reader, do not know what will trigger me. Or even as I stumble through life.
There is a limit to the usefulness of trigger warnings. A class, or blog post, or even a comment which will discuss certain topics — abuse, assault, objectification (and many others (I am (as usual) approaching this from a selfish me-centred viewpoint)) — are obvious candidates for a trigger warning. And are warranted. That way, the writer (or instructor, or speaker, or whatever) can then discuss a potentially troubling issue and those (like me) who deal with things from our past can choose to move on to something else, or, at the very least, be prepared to bail when I allow myself to be triggered. It allows for the discussion of difficult (now there’s an understatement) topics without my weakness stopping the discussion of a useful or educational issue.
There are times, though, when something that is innocent to almost everyone can also be triggering. And I cannot always know what that will be — a word, an image, a description can toss me into a place I don’t want to be. Which is not the fault of the writer. So, yeah, the author does not get to decide what is triggering but (and this is a big but) the reader also does not get to decide. That’s why it is a trigger.
I’m not communicating this very well and I apologize. My point is that I think trigger warnings are a great idea but they only apply to obvious things. I sometimes allow my self to trigger over things that are completely innocent — a smell (or the description of a smell (some years ago, I triggered when the question of whether Vaseline has a smell and I went back to a really bad memory)), a type of camera, a uniform, a particular voice (timbre, accent, etc), a texture. All innocent to most but, hell, I think anything is a potential trigger to someone. So definitely use trigger warnings/content warnings/NSFW labels/etc for content in blog posts or comments, classes, talks, you name it, but the one presenting the content is not responsible for my weaknesses, for my triggers, because there are so many triggers out there for so many people.
Anyway, I view trigger warnings as giving the reader (insert appropriate word there for whatever the medium) both a warning that something may be coming and as a a way to prepare for what is being presented.
Try as I may, I just can’t see how warning students that To Kill a Mockingbird has a lot of racist language, or that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo contains some potentially upsetting sexual violence, is violating anyone’s free speech rights. It’s just giving them a chance to prepare for it, or possibly in extreme cases, drop the course if they think they can’t cope.
Doesn’t the term “gas lighting” come from an old movie where someone was trying to drive his wife insane? (Too lazy to look it up right now.)
tbp1:
Gaslight, 1944. Starred Ingrid Bergman.
And yes, gaslighting is a very good description of what has happened to trigger warnings.
I’ve read Men Who Hate Women or as some may know it, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Then I read it again. The horrific rape scene was no less horrific in the second reading.
I hope a reasonable person would add a content note or trigger warning or however they wish to call it, if they added that book to a literature list in class. That’s not spoiling the book, it’s being a decent person.
Akira MacKenzie – That’s on purpose for two reasons. 1 – I’m a sucker for plagiarizing old Mel Brooks jokes (You’re the first one to catch it) and I can’t make a list of horrors without thinking of that scene in Blazing Saddles. 2- I teach Oedipus, Ovid, The Arthur Cycles, Paradise Lost and the family tree of the Olympians. That’s a lot of incest.
Carlie – “Stepped content notes might be a way to find a balance between, if you really don’t want to spell everything out.”
I’m using that. Thanks. But I’d argue your 1st point, i.e. people don’t like being surprised so we shouldn’t surprise them. Sure, some don’t. Nobody likes a surprise quiz. But that’s simply a personal preference, just like some people don’t like speaking in public. Add to that the fact an individual’s first encounter with a new text is, 95% of the time, an exploration of the unknown and the argument for spelling things out grows thin. Think of all the times you’ve heard someone say “I can’t put this book down. I can’t wait to see how it ends!” Hell, “a real page turner” is how they market fiction. I’m more than happy to give my students a heads up that what they’re going to read next contains some truly messed up scenes and concepts (I do it when I teach Ovid’s Metamorphosis aka two hundred pages of rape) but I can’t see going beyond that.
I find the whole “trigger warning” thing overused and silly to be honest. The problem is seeing “trigger warning” then not seeing anything that I’d consider “triggering”. It’s disappointing. It’s a let down. “Trigger warning” isn’t meant for the reader… it’s meant for the one doing the writing.
parrothead, #41
I think it’s gonna work.
@10 Sarah A:
I can’t help but think one part of it goes something along the lines of: “If all the decent people put trigger warnings on their content, then the fact that I pointedly refuse to makes it that much more obvious that I’m an asshole!”
Frankly I don’t get why people would complain about trigger warnings. A trigger warnings is like a writing on the sidewalk. If it doesn’t concern you, you can step right over it.
I’ve always thought of content/trigger warnings as being the cultural product equivalent of “contains eggs, dairy, wheat and ground nuts; manufactured in facilities which also process animal products; product of Outer Afsponistan” and similar on food labels. You provide the information, and the person faced with the information gets to decide firstly, whether or not they need to look at it – for example, I don’t have food allergies or religious requirements, and I’m a cheerful omnivore, so I tend to ignore the lists of ingredients and allergens on food labels – and secondly, whether or not they’re going to be consuming the product given the information provided.
Okay, some content warnings come as part of the genre: if you’re reading erotica, you’re going to see mentions of (possibly heavily euphemised) body parts and sexual content; if you’re reading a murder mystery, there’s going to be mention of death; religious texts will contain a mention (if not several) of a particular deity. In much the same way, a meal of bacon and eggs is likely to contain pork products and animal protein; a meal of steak and three vegetables is going to contain beef, peanut butter contains ground nuts, and so on.
On the other hand, sometimes it’s hard to tell from the genre label whether or not there’s triggering content – does a particular science fiction story, for example, contain sexual content? This is where content warnings come in handy for being able to make the decision. (In much the same way, my partner, who has a mild allergy to shellfish and crustacea, has to peruse the list of ingredients for the “fried rice” from the various local Asian takeaways).
But in much the same way that a list of ingredients doesn’t give you the meal itself, a list of content warnings shouldn’t be the same as the cultural product or content you’re considering. And in much the same way as it’s considered polite to let guests know that dish A is Vegan-friendly, or that dish B is gluten-free, I feel it’s polite to let students and random readers know that story X is going to contain mentions of sexual situations, or that story Y contains depictions of violence.
Meg Thornton
That sounds pretty reasonable, right?