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’

#221

Post by galdosdi » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:47 PM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #138

coddingtonbear wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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?

Databases have been using master/replica lately, which, fortuitously is (usually) actually slightly more precise anyway, and so is strictly better in every way

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

#222

Post by red_blobs » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:48 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…

"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."

If this is your normal behavior when a person mentions something undesirable, you need help and should probably get some professional counseling before enrolling in a university.

My problem is that we are catering to people with mental illnesses and making it difficult for anyone to accomplish anything without 'triggering' someone.

Life is tough, brutal, and ugly. It's doing a huge disservice to our youth to not give them the tools to properly cope with it.

Should they never travel abroad where trigger warnings and safe spaces will never be a thing? I traveled around Asia for 2 years when I was younger, and racism and bigotry are pretty normal occurrence.

It's also pretty apparent that it's now being used as a way to silence opposing viewpoints.

If I told you that gun control, atheists, and feminists trigger me, should any speech related to these on campus be banned?

I think one of the strangest things about the new generation is that unlike previous generations, they are actually fighting for more segregation, not less. Even the official BLM political site wants black-only establishments. You have groups that are self-segregating based on race and gender..yet scream for more diversity.

This is not my idea of diversity or freedom.

Universities used to be about the freedom of expression, thought, and open discussions. You can no longer have any kind of discussion if it veers away from the current narrative of the day.

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

#223

Post by manish_gill » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

mrtron wrote: post #150

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…

With the carnival ride analogy, you know a carnival ride has a physical strain that could cause problems to certain types of people, like pregnant women. How are you supposed to know the set of topics that could potentially trigger a large classroom of people? And how are you supposed to know what topics will be brought up in discussions or questions asked in a classroom? If someone is triggered by the topic of war o…

Completely agree with this. Trigger Warnings - good intentions or not, preventing panic attacks or not, are completely unreasonable from a practical standpoint. One cannot know in advance which information might or might not "trigger" someone. Not to mention, in a college setting, you can't just say "I refuse to attend this lecture because it triggered me.". Well if it causes you distress you can remove yourself from that environment.

You can't just know beforehand what might "trigger" someone, and you can't account for the majority of the cases. Add into it the fact that you cannot just avoid discussing uncomfortable topics because _some_ people might find it distressing -- sometimes discussing uncomfortable topics is the entire point, especially in academia, what else are you supposed to do?

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

#224

Post by ythl » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

qntty wrote: post #128

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #119

There seems to be whole lot of slippery-slope happening in this thread. Asking people to respect trigger warnings for the most common types of PTSD (generally, rape/sexual abuse) does not lead inevitably to banning everything that anyone has every been uncomfortable with. This is about reasonable accommodation. Consider the example of disability laws: you're required to install a wheelchair ramp/lift if an employee n…

If we coddle people in wheelchairs, they'll never learn to wheel themselves up stairs. In the real world, there are stairs everywhere and they need to get used to that. I sprained my ankle one time in college and I crutched my way up the stairs just like everyone else. Why can't they do the same?

Except mental handicaps are not as well understood as physical handicaps. Trying to accommodate every single mental handicap in society is futile and expensive.

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

#225

Post by weberc2 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:51 PM UTC

mankash666 wrote: post #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 prepa…

I'm guessing it started in the 90s when progressive social scientists edged out political dissenters from their departments, and began pushing their political orthodoxy as "science" to an already left-leaning campus who ate it up (confirmation bias and whatnot).

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

#226

Post by vertex-four » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #144

I remember someone a while back posted a lecture page from CMU. They support Trigger Warnings. And a few papers there had them. It was a database course, I can only imagine "master/slave" terminology. So I was wondering, how are Trigger Warning supposed to work? Can the student refuse to do the required reading and claim full credit because might be triggered, seems like it would open loophole. That was just CS stuff…

Allowing people to ensure that they're in a mental state to handle a topic before they handle it is reasonably important. Mind, in the case of master/slave, the term "trigger warning" is likely misused and a simple statement of "these used to be the standard terms for discussing this, now many people use leader/follower" is reasonable. Explaining historical context to things that may be upsetting can never be a bad thing, IMHO.

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

#227

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:54 PM UTC

ythl wrote: post #224

qntty wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we coddle people in wheelchairs, they'll never learn to wheel themselves up stairs. In the real world, there are stairs everywhere and they need to get used to that. I sprained my ankle one time in college and I crutched my way up the stairs just like everyone else. Why can't they do the same?

Except mental handicaps are not as well understood as physical handicaps. Trying to accommodate every single mental handicap in society is futile and expensive.

There's nothing wrong with trying. There just needs to be recognition that resources are finite.

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

#228

Post by metaphorm » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:54 PM UTC

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]

you quoted someone's statement of personal opinion. it doesn't need a citation. do you really need people to spell it out for you explicitly "hey these words are my opinions"?

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

#229

Post by MaxfordAndSons » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:54 PM UTC

leroy_masochist wrote: post #21

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…

> 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.

That seems a bit callous. Care to elaborate? I don't think they are usually framing these as "demands", and I don't see how asking for this consideration necessarily crosses into "competitive victimhood". Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, physical stimuli are the type of "actual" triggers than can cause real panic attacks in those with PTSD, unlike verbal discussions of uncomfortable topics which can cause emotional distress but not true panic attacks.

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

#230

Post by jackcosgrove » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 8:56 PM UTC

There's a subtle point that's getting overshadowed by the lightning rod discussions about trigger warnings and safe spaces.

The U of C is explicitly stating in this letter that if you don't agree with their values, don't come to the school.

This seems uncontroversial to me, but I think it's worth affirming that self-segregation is a valid social strategy. I know segregation is a loaded word, but that's because historically it was caught up in the exercise of power differentials.

Robert Putnam concluded (http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...) that diverse societies actually see a decline in civic life because there is more friction and distrust between individuals with different values. So there is such a thing as too much diversity, and diversity must be balanced with cohesion.

Moreover, diversity seen as social mixing is self-defeating since after enough social mixing everyone is the same and there is no more diversity. There is a happy medium whereby people can be tolerant and different at the same time. Indeed, tolerance and difference need each other to exist.

Segregation is abused when there is an exercise of a power differential, whether between individuals or groups.

So I'll strike the balance by saying, "You have the right to segregate yourself from others and hold exclusionary values as long as you do not use force to impose those values on others."

If you disagree with this statement, I'd ask you to examine how many ways you segregate yourself from others. Do you befriend anyone? Do you date anyone? Do you work with or hire anyone? Everyone engages in this behavior because we are social animals and shared values are necessary for society.

In the long term perhaps human society will become universally shared, at which point many of these controversies will be moot. However that is not the case now so we should allow communities of like-minded individuals to form and share values that differ from the values of others. Indeed we should always allow this, because there will always be minorities no matter how homogeneous the dominant culture is.