University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’ • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by wflynny » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

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?

Mentioning the word rape is not a discussion of rape.

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

#32

Post by DickingAround » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

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?

(Not all that sure myself) Perhaps because it's difficult to simulate the brain of all the other readers and reasonably anticipate offense. Like I know rape happens and describing it in detail might be something that most people are asking for 'trigger warnings' about. But only because it's been talked about. I actually can't simulate the brain of a rape victim and anticipate such things independently.

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

#33

Post by spriggan3 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

panglott wrote: post #12

They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted? That's weird.

> They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted? That's weird.

Why would a student need a special space to feel safe/accepted? Doesn't the university already provide students basic safety?

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

#34

Post by jpfed » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #15

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…

> What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. Because they are involve quite similar problems (safe for whom and from what ? Warnings for which specific of the billions of potential PTSD triggers ?) and are typically advocated for together, by the same people, as linked demands, to serve similar broad purposes. > But trigger warnings…

I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

The point of extending the courtesy of trigger warnings isn't that you will, with 100% certainty, prevent anyone from entering a state of psychological distress. That's obviously not attainable.

But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There's really obvious stuff that instructors could warn about, but aren't. After I posted a similar sentiment on Facebook, a TA told me about their professor showing porn (featuring torture) in class. Who could have known that the majority-female class she was showing this to would contain some rape victims that left the classroom in tears?! Totally out of the blue, that.

Now, I don't expect anyone to know that aging wood with thin brown flaking paint is evocative of the assault I experienced; that would be ridiculous. But of course descriptions of assaults themselves are going to be evocative.

In short, there's really easy low-hanging fruit here, and I hope people aren't so turned off by the unattainable goals of safe spaces and 100% trigger coverage that they don't extend the courtesy of warning for really obvious, foreseeable triggers.

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

#35

Post by sp332 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

rapsey wrote: post #24

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 discuss…

I think you're missing the part where they are victims, and all we're trying to do is minimize the damage. That's a calculated risk that each person is going to have to take for themselves.

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

#36

Post by peruvian » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #27

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 Jess…

It goes both ways. People constantly say they're triggered when they're just offended or inconvenienced.

If everyone followed your definition, we'd never had problems.

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

#37

Post by FT_intern » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

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?

When a trigger warning is announced, a triggering concept is mentioned. When a triggering concept is mentioned, people are triggered. Soon, people associate trigger warnings with the triggered symptoms.

We need a trigger warning about trigger warnings.

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

#38

Post by mikeash » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

zyxley wrote: post #18

mikeash wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article links to another one discussing the difficulty of teaching law in this environment, because many aspects of law are potentially "triggering": http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...

I don't really see the relevance of the article. It complains a lot about students being oversensitive to bad things, but it has barely anything to do with actual trigger warnings. Trigger warnings aren't about bending to the every whim of everyone you encounter. They're about labeling material ahead of time so that people can make a more informed decision about when and how they expose themselves to it. Nothing abou…

I think the author is saying that trigger warnings end up going beyond simply warning people of potentially objectionable content. Once you start putting in trigger warnings, it starts to look like official support for avoiding the potentially objectionable material, and students start picking and choosing what they learn while still expecting to be able to get good grades.

If all you want to do is inform people about what you're going to discuss, a good syllabus will take care of it. There's no need to put in any warnings. College students should be intelligent enough to work out for themselves what topics they might not like.

Much of this debate seems to center on the platonic ideal of "trigger warning" and "safe space" versus how they actually end up working with real students and real universities.

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

#39

Post by zyxley » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

rapsey wrote: post #24

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 discuss…

Nothing about trigger warnings requires immediately jumping down the slippery slope of putting "WARNING: CHEESE INSIDE" on the refrigerator door.

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

#40

Post by mikeash » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

zyxley wrote: post #29

mikeash wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure we can find someone who is uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Not that we should necessarily accommodate such extremes, but how do you decide where to draw the line?