Live data from Hacker News

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

time.com

201–210 of 444 posts

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

#201
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> This tells me it's possible to be considerate of common triggers while still drawing the line somewhere I agree it is, but right now it's very difficult to have the discussions necessary to draw those lines—supporters of trigger warnings only want to discuss the cases where they're clearly justified (fireworks & veterans) and pretend all uses are similarly valid, and critics of trigger warnings only want to discuss…

That's a good point. Internet commenters tend to overgeneralize. Fortunately, those people aren't strictly needed for a solution. The only party who needs to listen is the content provider (in my example, the news outlet).

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment". Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school. Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 succ…

Look at the way things could be, and ask "Why not?" I'm not going to reject the ideal of college as a place to expand intellect because one common use is as a trade school.

[deleted]

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

#204
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism: allowing for, rather than actively silencing, diverse political discourse. This is in stark contrast to neighbor Chicago school DePaul, who last month blocked[0] Jewish conservative minority voice Ben Shapiro fr…

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to s…

I would be fine with this if it were applied equitably. As it stands, centrist and conservative students have been expected to endure progressive indoctrination, and they've done so relatively quietly up until it their speech and activities began to be prohibited (I believe it was UIC where someone chalked "Trump 2016" on the sidewalks, and students tried to have it prosecuted as a hate crime).

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

#205
How did universities evolve from spaces meant to evoke controversial and provocative thought (like the birth of the free speech movement at UC Berkeley) to the "safe spaces" of today? If a university is meant to enrich you, one worthy lesson is the ability to "agree to disagree in a cordial fashion". If you disagree or feel threatened by a line of thought, make your voice heard. Receding into a safe space won't prepare you for the real world.

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

#206
post #125
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were victims; they're not actively victims in the moment of a discussion. The damage has already been done. Conversely, you can say that you're helping with the recovery and healing process. But it's important to acknowledge the aspects of the past, present and future as they relate to trauma.

Causing someone a panic attack in the present is not damage that "has already been done".

They're not experiencing a new incidence of trauma, they're reliving one.

A more "physical" corollary would be the "ghost" limb sensation for someone who has lost one. That person doesn't lose their limb every time the sensation comes and goes away -- it was lost before and after the incident. It may be painful sure, but who says that recovery and healing is without pain? One of the leading methods of treating PTSD being studied is having combat veterans relive a similar incident through a controlled environment.

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

#208
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to s…

> The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment This is most certainly not the case at the University of Chicago. If you want a degree, even a prestigious one, there are far easier options (even in Chicago... See that school in Evanston ;) Students choose the U of C because they want to be challenged by ideas, they want to spend four mise…

Yep, UChicago alum here, too. It's a weak argument anywhere to claim we should limit free speech simply because most students attend universities for job training, not for intellectual enrichment. But it's an epic fail of an argument at Chicago. The school year opens with an address to the first years from a faculty member on "The Aims of Education." UC is not a lunch counter where students order things to their liking. Rather, the institution sits you down and tells you why you are there. You are encouraged to expand on their thoughts, but never to shirk the responsibilities the University puts on you.

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

#210
post #189
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see." But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being off…

I read the wikipedia you linked, specifically about trigger warnings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger#Trigger_warning... But your statement: > They're to prevent panic attacks. Seems to counter the arguments in the link: > Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[13] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are d…

> Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder" while citing several academic studies conducted on PTSD sufferers.

Right, but I'd assume this is probably done in small increments or doses? A person who's finding themselves exposed to said triggers may not be able to control how much of it they get in certain situations, which could arguably leave them off worse after the event.

Post reply on HN