41–50 of 444 posts
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"
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.
Do they? I only seem to see the latter online when people are being facetious about it. Do you see examples of people saying they were triggered and shouldn't have been and they are not referencing panic attacks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So student associations shouldn't be allowed to not allow certain people into their meetings if they're found to be abusive? Because that's the point of a safe space if you didn't know. It's not unlike support groups who can and will eject people who are known to be abusive or otherwise disclose information outside the support group without permission of all members. So, to say that safe spaces shouldn't be allowed i…
No, because the statement expressly says "freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others."
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.
To further muddy things, you should know that explosions themselves don't produce the responses they do just in veterans. High-bandwidth sounds trigger an autonomic response as soon as they hit the brain stem- long before the cortex has a chance to think "I recognize that as an explosion", the brain stem said "HOLY SHIT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING". This mechanism is observed in rape and abuse survivors as well as veterans.
They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted? That's weird.
A "safe space" is a place where certain speech and actions are prohibited, and people considered likely to participate in them are excluded. This, of course, is true everywhere, but in a "safe space" these restrictions are stronger.
The university enforces a certain code of conduct globally, prohibiting clear abuses. When they prohibit safe spaces, they are saying that their standards of conduct should be sufficient, and that defining a stricter standard is not acceptable because at that point it would be considered censorship and exclusion.
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?
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…
>No, they aren't. They are neither simple, nor are they,
You are mostly right, but there is danger here.
Traditional courtesy and political correctness do overlap a lot -- they tell us to do the same sort of things. They are not the same. As you suggest, personal consideration is not the same as political sensitivity.
But when the backlash against PC comes, that too is a kind of political sensitivity. Fear of being PC can lead people to be offensive when they would otherwise have been polite.
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?
Mentioning the word rape is not a discussion of rape.