Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 444 posts

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#21

Post by leroy_masochist »

jpfed wrote: post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

With regard to veterans and fireworks, I think that would actually be an example of a "safe space", in that the vets in question are demanding that neighbors not celebrate America's independence within a given radius of their homes. They're not asking for a heads-up before people shoot off roman candles...they're saying, don't do it near my house, period.

FWIW, I don't think this is a consideration worth extending to veterans, and I am dismayed by the fact that many vets have embraced the culture of competitive victimhood that has infected much of American popular discourse.

With that said I do think that a professor giving a heads-up to students that they're going to discuss uncomfortable topics (e.g., rape) in class is probably the right thing to do, within reason (e.g., if it's going to be the central theme of that day's discussion).

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#22

Post by basseq »

This is tough.

With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly egregious edge cases disappear.

In the middle, I think people have the right to remove themselves from discussions—civil or otherwise—that they don't want to listen to or engage. But that right doesn't limit others' ability to have those selfsame discussions in public or private venues, nor require others to give you advance warning about it.

And finally, U. Chicago has the right to set degree requirements. If you are unable or unwilling to meet those requirements (e.g., not participating in discussions), then you have no place at that institution. After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand.

So...

Trigger Warnings ("A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see.") U. Chicago says they "don't support" them. I think actively discouraging them in every case seems extreme, but the institution simply can't be required to provide trigger warnings in every case for every individual. In other words, a lack of trigger warning doesn't mean you won't be triggered.

Safe Spaces ("A safe space is a place they can go to avoid those subjects or heal after confronting them.") U. Chicago doesn't condone the creation of safe spaces. Similarly, I think this stance is extreme. Safe spaces may be necessary for individuals. But U. Chicago is under no obligation to provide them for you or excuse you from other discussions as a result.

In other words, U. Chicago isn't a place for people who don't want to discuss issues that make them uncomfortable. Which, on its face, seems reasonable to me.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#23

Post by brightball »

jpfed wrote: post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

It's just not an equivalent analogy. Explosions sound and light are somewhat recreating a war time experience. The classroom equivalent for trigger warnings would be telling veterans that a discussion of a war in history class was coming.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#24

Post by rapsey »

jpfed wrote: post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up.

And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning?

If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts?

When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discussions you don't want to have?

If someone has a personal issue, what gives them the right to force their issues on others? Why must everyone adapt to them?

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#25

Post by zyxley »

beachstartup wrote: post #17
zyxley wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, it basically means "club room where people who don't like the club aren't allowed in".

more like "club room where people who aren't liked by the club aren't allowed in"

Yes, that's usually the complaint that people who don't like safe spaces add. It always seems to me like the people who trumpet that loudest easily fit into the "don't like the club" category, though.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#26

Post by gcoda »

fixermark wrote: post #5
joesmo wrote: post #3

I think this should be a requirement for any university that wants accreditation and certainly all state-run institutions. This is a bold statement not for the Uni. of Chicago, but for every other university that does not have a similar policy in place. Sorry, but you cannot get a proper education with trigger warnings and safe spaces. Therefore, those institutions that do not have the courage to stand up for educati…

> Sorry, but you cannot get a proper education with trigger warnings and safe spaces. [citation needed]

when someone lecturing about evolutionary biological differences in "progressive" universities nobody listens and constantly interrupted by triggered liberals. And same guy with same lecture in more technical or business oriented university will educate more people, on how to exploit evolution to gain more profit. Some people will gain knowledge and profit from it while some will get triggered. I heard about experiences like this before, but this one is form Gad Saad on Joe Rogan podcast. https://youtu.be/TjBgeuTvnnk?t=1h36m9s

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#27

Post by jordigh »

One thing that bugs me is that people think trigger warnings are to make sure people don't get offended. Being triggered is not the same thing as being offended. Being triggered is about having a fucking panic attack, hyperventilating, feeling like you're having a heart attack and you're about to die.

Panic/anxiety attacks are not a silly little thing. They were portrayed somewhat accurately in Netflix's recent Jessica Jones (she even uses a common grounding tactic to prevent them, like street names from childhood), and in Love and Mercy, that biopic of the Beach Boys' frontman. Having had close experiences with people who have panic attacks and see them getting triggered by being reminded of certain incidents, I can tell you that panic attacks are not fun, and those suffering from them are not faking, nor are they being whiners. With time, it's possible to get over your triggers, but it's a long healing process. During healing, trigger warnings are the same courtesy as signs saying that people with heart conditions or expectant mothers shouldn't get on certain carnival rides.

But people now on the internet say stupid shit like "triggered much?" for what was once called "u mad bro?" And whether exaggerated or not, it seems that this kind of "triggering" is what UofC seems to be speaking out against. That's not what a trigger warning is for.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#28

Post by acbabis »

trevin wrote: post #11
jpfed wrote: post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

I'd argue that it's equally as impossible to set up trigger warning policies. While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, th…

Many news outlets will say "Warning, the following story contains graphic imagery," and people don't think this is unreasonable; nor do they expect more specific content warnings in the future. This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#29

Post by zyxley »

mikeash wrote: post #16
jpfed wrote: post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

I can't decide whether or not I'm playing devil's advocate with this question. In any case, please don't take it too seriously, but I think it might be interesting. Why did you not include a trigger warning about the discussion of rape in your comment?

"Mention of rape" and "discussion of rape in enough detail to cause discomfort" are not the same thing.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#30

Post by wmil »

mox1 wrote: post #7

Am I missing something, or doesn't safe space just = Library / Dorm room ? Maybe add some headphones so you can't hear anything....

No. People arguing for "safe spaces" are generally arguing that the entire university should be a "safe space". So it's really about control over shared space and the right to police offensive dialog.
Post reply on HN