Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 444 posts

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

#181

Post by deong »

jordigh wrote: post #73
basseq wrote: post #22

This 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…

> "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…

> They're to prevent panic attacks.

That might have been the original intent of a "trigger warning", but their sheer prevalence today indicates that this is either no longer true or else we have nothing less than a massive public health emergency that we should be dropping everything else to work to address.

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

#182

Post by riot504 »

brightball wrote: post #63
jpfed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're looking for a depth of equivalence that I wasn't suggesting was there. To further muddy things, you should know that explosions themselves don't produce the responses they do just in veterans. High-bandwidth sounds trigger an autonomic response as soon as they hit the brain stem- long before the cortex has a chance to think "I recognize that as an explosion", the brain stem said "HOLY SHIT SOMETHING IS…

So in what classroom circumstances would a warning be necessary? I'm all for being courteous, I just have serious concerns about giving college students the impression that the world around them needs to adjust to them rather than vice versa.

A warning is never required. If you are unable to listen (or god forbid a disturbing image) to controversial issues that are literally occurring in real life you won't be able to handle the real world once college is over.

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

#183

Post by AnimalMuppet »

gcoda wrote: post #44
secabeen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the statement expressly says "freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others."

Not really, your freedom ends when you diminishing someone else freedom. Harassing and threatening do not make people less free. Even Mozart was considered offensive some times, some people was triggered and described his music as immoral . So, freedom of expression should be without any restriction, except when it stepping on freedom of other people.

But that's a different topic. "You can say anything you want" is different from "you can say anything you want in our meeting".

Saying that Mozart can compose anything he wants is different from saying that the symphony has to play it, and that I have to go.

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

#184

Post by mcphage »

acbabis wrote: post #28
trevin wrote: post #11

Earlier 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…

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 the cases where they're clearly not (slimy things), and pretend that all uses are similarly invalid. Determining where the lines should be drawn will be a long, complicated, painful discussion, but currently there's no way to have that conversation. If your opinion is somewhere in the middle, most internet commentators will lump you into the all-for or all-against group.

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

#185

Post by vertex-four »

Jeema101 wrote: post #113
jordigh wrote: 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…

Avoidance in the form of 'trigger warnings' may actually worsen the underlying problem for people with PTSD because avoidance can strengthen the underlying fear. Successful treatment often actually involves confronting the fear, little by little, until it no longer causes discomfort: "Exposure therapy is a type of cognitive behavioral therapy[118] that involves assisting trauma survivors to re-experience distressing…

It's not your right to attempt to "treat" someone of a disorder as someone who isn't their doctor.

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

#186

Post by ohitsdom »

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…

See, my understanding of trigger warnings is more to prepare and forewarn students of difficult discussions. Like- "we're going to be talking about rape and its psychological effects tomorrow." Not- "WARNING- this textbook uses the word 'violate' when discussing DBs."

The first example seems like an obvious common courtesy, the second seems pointless. I say pointless because some words are used in everyday life in normal ways that may be "triggering", but that's entirely different from an in-depth discussion of a sensitive topic that's triggering. But that's obviously just my opinion, I'm sure many disagree and that's why this is such a hot button issue right now.

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

#187

Post by ebola1717 »

This statement by the University is willfully ignorant. The University provides an officially sanctioned LGBTQ Safe Space (https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space). Clearly the University isn't ensuring that people who think gay people are evil are also represented in those safe spaces. Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism.

The point of contention is and always has been which spaces, why, and for what reasons. The University is clearly not ignorant of the nuances of this debate, and if it wanted to commit itself to rigorous debate, it could do so while respecting that there is a valid rigorous debate to be had about this policy.

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

#188

Post by Pete_D »

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?

I can't remember which, but I saw one project change to "primary/secondary".

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

#189

Post by jotux »

jordigh wrote: post #73
basseq wrote: post #22

This 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…

> "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 designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. 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.

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

#190

Post by noddingham »

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…

Why do you think it would be hard on a college campus? You simply declare an office in a building to be a "safe space", or a space designated for certain groups and then promote, encourage the use of, and fill it with people that align with . Additionally, the safe space is placed in a building that is not funded by taxpayers, thus can be managed in basically whatever way the university sees fit (including denying access to the space).
Post reply on HN