131–140 of 444 posts
The rise of these recent techniques of protest are more a failure of our high schools and universities to provide sufficient visibility and importance to debate and discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Indeed. The term "trigger warning" seems to have been coined to give unjustified moral weight to the idea of content warnings, by implying their absence causes PTSD attacks, rather than just being material upsetting to many people. And I can't help thinking that, like many ideas from social justice, overly moralising a reasonable idea has made it much less palatable that it might otherwise have been.
...Sounds familiar...
"...much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...
It's important to acknowledge that the term "safe space" means different things to different people. To the Yale protestors (who were widely supported at UChicago) the entirety of university housing at Yale was meant to be a "safe space," so it was incumbent on the university to fire professors who voiced unwelcome opinions in that space. To many of the people who are angry about this letter, "safe space" means a sup…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using alternative definitions of terminology is disingenuous. 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 ar…
Universities are places where unpopular points of view must be entertained and debated. Expressing or advocating unpopular or unpleasant points of view is not against university codes of conduct—nor should it be. But must it then also be the case that associations of students cannot limit hostile discussion in smaller settings? Topics like the Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the efficacy of sexuality conversio…
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 seems to be taken as a given that certain kinds of content are particularly likely to be triggers, but is that actually the case? What I've read suggests that actual causes are varied and unpredictable.
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 consideration worth extending to a veteran... But I don't. It isn't that I don't feel empathy for the veterans, but I think they should be offered (by the government) a safe place to go so they aren't triggered. This is a yearly event. And I think we (citizens and government) have a responsibility to provide help. The veteran has the responsibility to actually follow through with the help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
One of the most effective ways of learning is to hear and consider ideas opposed to the ones you currently hold. But these kinds of things (trigger warnings and safe spaces) act to prevent this. It inhibits learning. Sheltering people's preconceptions is the perfect way to prevent them from learning to think independently, which is opposite to the reason for going to school. Or at least, used to be.
Second, what the hell kind of professor shows porn to their class!? The warning required in that case is that the professor is unfit to teach, and/or the course offered is unworthy of any curriculum. I'm not a prude, and I can imagine perhaps some sort of graduate criminal psychology class where that might be justifiable, but it seems some sort of written description would do just fine even then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Mention of rape" and "discussion of rape in enough detail to cause discomfort" are not the same thing.
That might be true, but there are a variety of cases where we've decided to stop using a word in general in order to avoid causing undue distress; "slave" (i/r/t "master" and "slave") in a computing context is now generally always phrased in another way, for example.
I need to educate myself. What do people use instead of "slave device" in computing?
Bad move, Chicago. If the kids don't learn how to use trigger warnings and safe spaces at school, how will they know how to use all of the trigger warnings and safe spaces in the real modern world after they graduate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" from the list: - Pregnancy/childbirth - Death or dying - Slimy things It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.
Which is, in turn, why many people don't take these things seriously. Of course, perhaps there is a justification for "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" in colleges, but the issue of whether those 1) belong in the classroom as opposed to elsewhere on campus, and 2) should be a feature of colleges at all, is completely derailed by things like this.