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’

#261

Post by forgetsusername » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #238

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…

> 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?

>give examples

I wouldn't even know where to start.

How about: a belligerent country invades your sovereign and abuses and kills the populace. That's happened repeatedly, to millions of people, throughout history.

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

#262

Post by Ressuder » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

riot504 wrote: post #182

brightball wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does not being able to watch a beheading have to do with "handling the real world"?

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

#263

Post by leroy_masochist » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #229

leroy_masochist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 victimho…

Elaboration as follows: I think that people putting signs on their lawn asking others to be considerate in their fireworks usage is less an effort to avoid PTSD triggers and more a misguided attempt to gain attention and recognition. It also has the effect of reinforcing the "veterans are damaged goods" narrative that is pervasive through much of our popular culture.

More generally, PTSD is not what most vets have, it's PTS. It's not a disorder to be a bit agoraphobic when you come back from theater, or to drive in the middle of the road, or to have a short temper. These are natural responses to stimuli that dissipate over time. The best way to help people through these acquired reflexes is to treat them as normal people, not as special snowflakes in need of coddling.

Also, people putting signs on their lawns identifying themselves as combat veterans and saying "please be courteous" or whatever else....that's classic passive aggressive behavior that is a demand for all practical purposes.

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

#264

Post by ctlby » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #242

judah wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe so, no. DePaul claimed they blocked Shapiro from speaking due to "security concerns"[0]. In particular, students in favor of safe spaces and trigger warnings threatened to riot, block the doors, and prevent student access to the event. DePaul capitulated to this bullying by banning Shapiro. Related: California State University-Los Angeles planned on hosting Shapiro to speak, but demanded[1] the studen…

Do you believe that speakers of hate speech should be allowed on campus? I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former. I'm a grad student at DePaul at the loop campus so I don't really follow much of what is going on with the undergrads at the main campus, but it seems to me that the administration is taking a hard stance because of people like Milo who are mostly there for shock…

> I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former.

There is zero difference. "Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles.

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

#265

Post by Chathamization » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:51 PM UTC

mcjon77 wrote: post #198

Chathamization wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yes, most people go to universities for the credential in order to gain employment. However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education. One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics. My assumption is that University of Chicago believes that in orde…

> However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education. One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics.

I don't think that's actually the case. In my experience, employers care whether or not a person is generally competent (often using degrees as a type of signalling, even if that's not accurate), if they can justify the hiring purchase to others (IE, do they have a decent defense if you're a terrible employee), and whether or not you would excel in that particular job (hence asking you questions about it and your work style in general).

I can't think of a case where an interviewer was attempting to see if the candidate was able to think critically about a variety of topics (topics not connected to the particular job). I don't know of any example of, say, a programmer getting interviewed and being asked how they would interpret a particular piece of literature, or being particularly interested if they frequented a political debate group. Such things are almost never considered particularly important when resume suggestions are given.

However, if you have examples of something like this I would be interested in hearing them.

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

#266

Post by devopsproject » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:52 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #238

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…

> 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?

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, you are expected to perform. They expect that you will need help remembering to do your work, or to show up on time, or to be responsible for yourself.

Today, it seems, that the "college experience" is being overthrown by the PC police. This is what some colleges are teaching those entering the workforce:

Saying "Where are you from" is racist

Saying "America is a melting pot" is racist

Saying "Hey, can you guys help me look at this problem" is sexist\misogynist

Telling a woman in leadership “I love your shoes!” is bad

Referring to your co-worker’s girlfriend as “girlfriend” instead of “partner” is homophobic

And on and on and on.

And then these kids enter the workforce with an older generation who thinks the above list is absurd. There is going to be conflict and they older generation will wonder what happened to the youngins. They are incapable of living without finding ways to point to their victim hood or oppression.

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?"

Sources:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27028/

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27984/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-codd...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise...

note to readers: victimhood and oppression do exist and I am not trying to belittle the very real experiences of many people in our society.

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

#267

Post by vonmoltke » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #174

Jeema101 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This argument is absurd and yet I see it often enough that I assume it is a standard political talking point. I mean, are you really arguing that the clinical approach to trauma is to surprise the patient with the topic in the middle of important everyday tasks? Obviously, trigger warning provide a useful tool for people to manage their own exposure to these panic attacks. If this was not the case then no-one would e…

You glossed over the first sentence:

> Avoidance in the form of 'trigger warnings' may actually worsen the underlying problem for people with PTSD because avoidance can strengthen the underlying fear.

The argument is that active avoidance is bad because it makes the ensuing panic attacks worse when they do happen and makes it harder for exposure therapy to work. Your post is addressing a strawman.

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

#268

Post by rayiner » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #69

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…

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.

That's an ideal that was never really true. Historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di....

I'm not a supporter of the movement to stamp out uncomfortable ideas from universities. But let's not look at things through rose-colored glasses. Even with space spaces, universities today are much closer to the ideal than they were 50-100 years ago.

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

#269

Post by Kalium » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:57 PM UTC

gregd wrote: post #195

Erik816 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is meant to be a nod to the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire concept of safe spaces and trigger warnings. Taken to their logical conclusion, these policies would lead to a gutting of the entire premise of a liberal education, which is what the University of Chicago has always sought to provide (source: proud alumnus, particularly today). You simply cannot protect people from ideas they disagree with while als…

There is a difference between safe spaces meant to coddle ignorant privileged white kids from having to hear ideas they've never heard before, and safe spaces as a refuge for marginalized students who need a break from racist, classist, bigoted, body shaming, heteronormative, colonial, hegemonic treatment from others on campus. There is a difference between privileged white kids demanding trigger warnings for topics…

How do you propose to disambiguate between the two reliably?

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

#270

Post by jonnathanson » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 9:58 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #130

judah wrote: post #69

Earlier 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…

I'd argue that a big part of preparing for the working world is learning to think critically and contend with ideas and concepts that may seem strange, foreign, or downright unsettling to you. Because that's what the real world will throw at you. And because doing so will strengthen your intellectual and emotional abilities.

There's more to any given job, or any given career path, than the hard skills required for it. Arguably much more.

I realize we can quickly slip down the rabbit hole of debating what the primary purpose of a college education is supposed to be. I'd rather not do so. Even if we believe that the primary purpose is job preparation, we should acknowledge that developing critical thinking skills serves that purpose well.