101–110 of 157 posts
People can be thrown into paralysis or panic by PTSD. Giving a warning that something is about to be discussed in depth that might trigger such an attack, allowing someone who knows they would experience one to absent themselves while the lecture or discussion continues, isn't censorship. It's courtesy.
This is the end result of a culture that treats children like dainty chinadolls that are going to shatter at the first fracture. These kids are coddled since they are born to make sure they are "safe" and ferried endlessly from one constructive activity to another so they don't take any risk. Of course it will also be that they need "safe spaces" in college (basically extended high school) whenever they hear somethin…
Here's my theory: college students are well-meaning, overzealous, and inexperienced. Therefore they make bad bad decisions, and even good decisions they make are often framed or communicated poorly. Like all adults, only moreso.
FTA: "Still, it’s disconcerting to see students clamor for a kind of intrusive supervision that would have outraged students a few generations ago. But those were hardier souls."
Is there anything more tired and myopic than "kids these days?" But the Hacker News commentariat, a bastion of reason and rationality, has correctly identified these students' actions of civilization's imminent destruction by "rabid third wave feminists."
This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject. I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance. Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying.
Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying. This part: This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. And this part: It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject. And some people are probably downvoting the vindictiveness and pre…
Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the article is important?
"And this part"
I don't sympathize with people that actively constructs an environment where they will meet the least resistance. It's one thing if opinion pieces of different views on this subject was posted regularly, but they aren't. Quite the opposite.
"the vindictiveness and prejudice"
Maybe the biggest reason I left the mainstream tech industry is because of the judgement you meet when expressing an opinion that is seen as even remotely devaluing tech.
I'm having a much better time traveling and running my own business than being overworked, arguing about some library on a mailing list while trying to get some hobby project functional for production. Maybe that is prejudice, but it also how a lot of the tech industry works.
"are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate"
Or maybe it's just far easier.
"Hope your day gets better"
My day is going fine. My interaction here is very much conscious and not because I had a bad day.
People can be thrown into paralysis or panic by PTSD. Giving a warning that something is about to be discussed in depth that might trigger such an attack, allowing someone who knows they would experience one to absent themselves while the lecture or discussion continues, isn't censorship. It's courtesy.
Most of the article was about none of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great comments, yours and the "parent's". Very eloquently put. I have had problems with people thinking I'm arguing or attacking their ideas, when I am only looking for a debate and a more thorough view of their ideas and line of thinking. This forced me to rethink my communication skills and try to change my approach of conversing. I've found that people who understand those concepts can use them to their advantage…
> I have had problems with people thinking I'm arguing or > attacking their ideas, when I am only looking for a > debate and a more thorough view of their ideas and > line of thinking. Noble intent, poor execution. Consider that people in oppressed groups (women, victims of sexual assault, ethnic minorities) have had their legitimacy questioned and denied throughout most if not all of history. And then along comes yo…
Everyone should have a platform to safely express their opinions, but if their opinions are incorrect then they should be challenged and debated. Statements shouldn't be protected from scrutiny just because they are being uttered by a woman or a minority.
The more I see this kind of thing the more I am starting to fear that this is an unintended consequence of the internet. Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while forcing out any dissenting view points. Subcultures on the internet tend to trend towards the more and more extreme as anybody expressing an o…
You can see it in action on Hacker News, or any sites with downvotes. Inevitably, the downvoting will destabilise any equilibrium - the views of even a slight majority will get reinforced in a positive feedback loop, and you end up with an echo chamber. There are several opinions that I know can't be voiced here.
Well now I'm quite curious. Care to make a throwaway account and voice one?
It wasn't so long ago that "trigger warning" wasn't even a common phrase. I remember thinking about this in college, though, because I was in a relationship with someone who would get angry at people for expressing input that was too closely related to recent private trauma she had been through. I didn't really understand it because I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the produ…
I am sort of on the fence on this. On one hand, I do not like pursuing ignorance. On the other, I do not objectively know the difference between a mind that is repeatedly triggered by random noise that can immediately bring my mind back into a state of flipping between catatonia and hyper-stress/hyper-alert, and a mind that is able to control information flow and pursue it's goals (such as a phd and happiness in life…
You may be right that victims of trauma are not entirely understood. Even so, you seem to be suggesting that society _should_ "avoid provocative subjects entirely" and "pursue ignorance", as the parent puts it, to avoid upsetting victims of trauma. In the end, is that a strategy that will actually help any of us?
It wasn't so long ago that "trigger warning" wasn't even a common phrase. I remember thinking about this in college, though, because I was in a relationship with someone who would get angry at people for expressing input that was too closely related to recent private trauma she had been through. I didn't really understand it because I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the produ…
That said, I would never demand that all critical discussion of Christianity be banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it affected me" Then I applaud you, as that is a vital skill, rarely understood. So much miscommunication happens because content is easier to follow than intent, yet understanding intent is what really lets you get to know someone.
Judging somebody's intent is great - but consider how much better it works on some scales than others. Suppose you and I are close friends. We've known each other for years. We understand each others' intents pretty well. Last year I totally forgot your birthday - and you didn't get mad, because you know I was busy with a family emergency and my intent wasn't to make you feel like crap. Similarly, sometimes you make…
Learning to gauge intent is easy enough to summarise... 1. Listen to the words, then take your time to consider why they were said. 2. Give people the benefit of the doubt to start. It's not always accurate, but it'll lead you the right intention most of the time.
One further point, when people misjudge you, it can be easy to adjust your behaviour so you validate their opinion, don't do that. It's easy to say, but I promise you'll be better off if you're comfortable with your own intentions, regardless of how they've been interpreted. A little extra patience can sometimes let people catch on, but otherwise no need to dwell on it.
Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe." Emotional topics can definitely benefit from intellectual discussion, but it is not unreasonable to say that a portion of the population may very well not want to be a part of it
Why, then, isn't the "safe space" (in this case) anywhere that isn't the lecture hall holding the specific debate?