[deleted]
University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
371–380 of 444 posts
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clarifying question: What do you mean by "fear of being PC"? I'm a bit confused about the scenario you're describing.
Not the GP, but referring to the more broad anti-PC movement... Lets say The War On (the war on) Christmas. Fear of being PC in a context like that may work out as somebody avoiding the term "Hanukkah", even while speaking about / to a Jewish person, for fear of papering over Christmas, or looking like they're trying to change the name of the holiday. Some other anti-PC things, like use of the term "black people" in…
"black people" isn't necessarily anti-PC. Lots of people identify that way in preference to African-American. (And PoC is a wider group, not an equivalent alternative.)
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#373Earlier 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.
Really? You don't think people are capable of being traumatized by pregnancy, death, or insects? Personal injury and insects are among the most common phobias and pregnancy should be fairly obvious as to why it's on that list (I don't want to elaborate because that could be traumatizing).
Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#374What 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 is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning? If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discuss…
>Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts?
That's probably a good idea either way...
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness I disagree. To me, political correctness is about not limiting other people's opportunities through stereotyping them. Making jokes about gangstas when the black guy is around or talking about terrorists like they're all muslim reinforces stereotypes and makes it harder for people of that demographic. Political correctness isn't about preventing offense…
Your definition of political correctness is incorrect. And what you believe about it doesn't make it so.
Google disagrees with you: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Nothing in that relates to 'trigger warnings'.
It's nice, though, that you just declare me wrong by fiat, without any evidence to support the definition that you believe (or even what the definition is).
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your grade 1-12 teachers are, in some ways, paid to put up with your bullshit. They remind you about homework, listen you your excuses, etc. They understand that in many ways, you are still a child and that you do need help. College professors (based on my experience and popular wisdom) are less likely to fill that "parenting" role. You are expected to be responsible and to take the initiative. When you land a job, y…
>They will be at your job soon. Publicly shaming you or reporting you to HR for using the wrong word or asking "Did you and your girlfriend do anything fun this weekend?" Be careful on that slippery slope!
I'm not using partner instead of girlfriend just in case some third party might get their fee fees hurt. This is insanity. The linked articles provide many absurd examples. This isn't a slippery slope, this is stupidity personified.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#377Earlier 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…
> Want to be a lawyer ... Perfect example! Law is one career where you can learn everything you need to know by reading books (ok, maybe all of them are that way..). Yet legislators (many lawyers themselves) in several states have introduced new laws to limit licensure only to those who have degrees. This would've excluded notables like Lincoln, Jefferson, Darrow, Marshall.
Would you seriously want a lawyer who has learned only from books ? Such a lawyer would have very little experience in representing clients, and would not have learned from experienced lawyers.
Law has tons of grand overarching principles, that are extremely unclear unless you learn how to think about them. Furthermore, I don't think anyone can learn how to interpret conflicting laws, and likely outcomes under complex circumstances in any way other than practicing it under guidance from an experienced judge.
Furthermore a lawyer should be a good negotiator, should know how to apply client privilege in practice, should know ...
And you might say, become an apprentice somewhere. Yes, but if we do that, we'll go back to lawyers being a protected profession : only family of existing lawyers can learn from good lawyers and become good themselves. That wouldn't be a 100% thing but this would make it impossible for 99% of the population to become a good lawyer.
You also don't want bad lawyers to exist at all, because of the damage they can do to clients. You must absolutely prevent lawyering from having a lemon law problem or the justice system will collapse into total randomness. The situation we have now, with the degrees, is a grand compromise that means anyone (with some small amount of money, and little connections) can become a respected lawyer. I wouldn't mess with it unless you're prepared to see massive unexpected consequences.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely correct, and this illuminates an aspect of the controversy that I don't think gets quite enough coverage: where did the social justice/progressive left students learn about the terminology and ideology they advocate? They almost certainly didn't learn it in high school, from their peers in high school, or from their parents. (Although that may be changing.) They learned these things at the universit…
>They learned these things at the university, from professors, and from fellow students who learned from the same professors. I know what all of these things mean, and I didn't learn any of them from college, I learned them from reading blog posts and things online.
I'm sure a lot of other people did too, but I suspect the vast majority of college students never heard those things until they arrived at college.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment 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".
> 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…
Well, if universities are doing so wrong, you would expect people coming out to fix the problem by competing with them, at least in a free market like the States.
You may say they have, by setting up trade schools, whatever they are. If the trade schools are not doing enough, that's the problem of the trade schools, rather than of the universities. If the trade schools can provide good enough education, employers will recognize credentials they provide. If employers don't recognize them, there must be something missing from their education. The piece missing may well be what universities want the students to learn: communication with those you don't like.
Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. I'm not entirely familiar with the US usage of the term, but that doesn't seem right to me. The pre-WW2 British Public Order Act (1936) was enacted to stop attacks by British Facists on Jews, and part of it was a ban on the "use [of] threatening and abusive words"[1] It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles That certai…
Yeah and ask yourself what merit does Germany have when making a negative comment about islam on a social network will get you a visit and possible fine or jail time. This is thought crime and it's NOT the right direction for the world to go.
I don't think I made any comment about its utility?