They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted? That's weird.
you're being downvoted for deliberately twisting the meaning
University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
231–240 of 444 posts
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#232Earlier 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.
Citation? I remember someone going around with PRs to change things and being roundly laughed out.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speech in real life is way more limited than in college. You can say things you'd be fired for, be a total asshole, say racist things, and get a slap on the wrist in college.
There is a world outside the workplace.
And, weirdly enough, you can also generally choose who you interact with outside the workplace. If you don't want to hang out with people who refuse to stop smoking weed around you when asked? Fine. If you don't want to hang out with people who refuse to stop talking about rape around you? Also fine! Just want to be told when there's likely to be something uncomfortable coming up? Yup, you have a right to hang out with people who respect you enough to do that.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#234Earlier 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…
Sometimes it's helpful to analyze our reaction to things if we can find a similar situation where the politics are reversed.
Go to any public university in the South, and you can hear essentially the same sentiment in your post, coming from young conservative white kids who don't want to question the way they were brought up or learn about other cultures, gay rights, etc.
I think the idea of a university is that it's good for the intellectual development of both the conservative southern kids and the trigger warning kids if they occasionally have to struggle with new ideas outside their comfort zone.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#235Earlier 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…
You're right, of course, but I sure wish you weren't. In the world that I dream of we are prepared for an apprenticeship by the time we're halfway through high school and exit the apprenticeship a few years later in to a career. I just don't see any reason that 12 years of schooling isn't enough to get to entry level skill set in any profession.
Then we could save Universities for art and intellectual pursuits, spending an increasing amount of time there as our children grow up and eventually leave the house. As a dad of young children right now I feel a tinge of melancholy as I realize that in not too many years my children will move on and my life will become much quieter. How great would it be if instead I could look forward to that time when I'm able to engage with others who are at a similar stage in life for an indefinite period of challenging and rewarding study? People who have had enough life experience to actually have something to share and some real differing opinions and experiences? People who are not in a hurry to get a degree and get on with life? That seems to me to be much closer to the ideal of what we would like for a University to be.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#236What I find rather interesting, is that throughout human history we never had a need for trigger warnings until now. We've had slavery, 2 world wars, famine, countless horrors inflicted on a countless number of people. Nobody asks for it. Then I look to the third world there we have things like female genital mutilation, are the women who had that horror put upon them concerned with trigger warnings? Nope. Not as far…
Well the US has had obscenity laws in place until recently. It's just that the people who decided what was "upsetting" were politicians rather than students and had the power to get rid of it completely.
The United States still has obscenity laws. For example, Alabama's Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act [1]. It was challenged, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
I actually know someone who just shuts down and freezes for a few minutes at the mere mention of the word "rape". This person has made their discomfort known to their friends and requested the word be avoided in conversation, which is an easy enough request to comply with out of courtesy.
Note that this is a group of people drawn from 4chan and adjacent communities whose primary socialization is voip and online games, all areas known for a "challenging" discussion environment. The line seems to be, in this case, that one can reasonably expect to carve out a "safe space" among family and friends, but not total strangers.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#238This is tough . With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly egregious edge cases disappear. In the middle, I think people have the right to remove themselves from discussions—civil or otherwise—that they don't want to listen to or engage. But that right doesn't limit others' ability to have those selfsame discussions in…
> After all, the "real world" won't hold your hand.
This is where you lost me. It just sounds like such a "republican-dad" kind of thing to say and I don't even get what it means. Can you clarify and give examples?
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think they didn't? Just politely ask people around you not to make ridiculously loud noises without warning. It probably didn't occur to them to come up with a funny name for it because it's a very natural and sensible thing to do.
Asking is a quite different than what is being demanded by people today. People who advocate for 'trigger warnings' want it enforced by law as far as I understand. My question is still unanswered, what changed?
No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. They want people they interact with to be polite enough to take their needs into consideration. That's it. If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and look after yourself"?
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#240As someone who has difficulty listening to many subjects (I am extremely prone to depression) I still think this is a good move: If you have difficulty with a topic, pretending it doesn't exist won't help you.