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’

#301

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

ythl wrote: post #224

qntty wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we coddle people in wheelchairs, they'll never learn to wheel themselves up stairs. In the real world, there are stairs everywhere and they need to get used to that. I sprained my ankle one time in college and I crutched my way up the stairs just like everyone else. Why can't they do the same?

Except mental handicaps are not as well understood as physical handicaps. Trying to accommodate every single mental handicap in society is futile and expensive.

> Except mental handicaps are not as well understood as physical handicaps.

The obvious conclusion there is that we need to work with doctors and patients to understand their needs better, not "this is weird, so no point in trying."

> Trying to accommodate every single mental handicap in society is futile and expensive.

This is exactly the slippery-slope argument I was talking about. Reasonable accommodations.

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

#302

Post by tomohawk » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:43 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…

If you just want a gallon of milk, got ahead and buy it. No one's stopping you.

The real issue here is people using "safe spaces" and "triggers" and "microaggressions" and what have you to block people from making the choices they want to make. Like you, they seem to think that someone speaking about something they disagree with is about them. It isn't.

All you have to do is be tolerant, and mind your own business like any other adult.

If someone else wants to buy tomato juice, why should you care?

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

#303

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

emblem21 wrote: post #275

basseq wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree. (And was responding to the parent comment.) It begs two questions, though: 1. What's "reasonable"? 2. Does the meaning of "reasonable" change? (E.g., a criminal-law class vs. a computer science class) To me, this could be redefined as "topic appropriateness".

1. If I started posting the N-word over and over again this very moment, you would instinctively consider that unreasonable , so let's stop pretending to not know the definitions of things. 2. You can't rigorously define the boundaries of context. With those two axioms, we can conclude that the root of the matter, which protecting the feelings of children who have been catered to their whole lives, is not a path wort…

I was with you on the first two points. I'm not sure how you got from there to the third.

> With those two axioms, we can conclude that the root of the matter, which protecting the feelings of children who have been catered to their whole lives, is not a path worthy of resource or virtue.

No, the root of the matter is protecting sexual assault victims with PTSD. Certainly some entitled children have tried to hijack that train for their own petty benefit, but we don't eliminate Medicaid just because Medicaid cheats exist. (Well, most of us don't.)

You're quite right that you can't rigorously define the values of context: something can only work with broad guidelines interpreted on a case-by-case basis. That does not mean that they're completely unaddressable and we shouldn't bother. People are not machines.

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

#304

Post by T2_t2 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

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…

I think the idea of trigger warnings is a really good one. "Here is a topic not everyone will be able to process. If you don't feel like you can be a part of it, please leave, because we WILL be talking about it." This is a very anti-censorship stance. Tyler Cowan said it best: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/why...

However, triggers have changed from a thing individuals are warned of that they have a personal responsibility to avoid, to something the world is supposed to avoid for people.

"I was triggered" has become an argument some groups make as a way to say something inappropriate happened. This is non-sensical, because the idea of triggers is that something random sets someone off because of a past experience. We can't remake the world because strawberries set you off!

What's worse, this use of triggers as a preemptive is a very small step away from certain groups censoring others.

Triggers are a great idea, but only if being triggered is not be an argument against something being done, and not if it is a phrase that holds any power as a preemptive. That is that part that needs to change, the preemptive, nothing that triggers anyone is acceptable part. I just can't see how that part can or will be changed.

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

#305

Post by easong » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:52 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #43

peruvian wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes both ways. People constantly say they're triggered when they're just offended or inconvenienced. If everyone followed your definition, we'd never had problems.

> People constantly say they're triggered when they're just offended or inconvenienced. Do they? I only seem to see the latter online when people are being facetious about it. Do you see examples of people saying they were triggered and shouldn't have been and they are not referencing panic attacks?

(Note: I support trigger warnings and think that they have a lot of use as a tool even outside of the typical context)

I'm in close contact with a lot of social justice groups, specifically ones based out of UC Berkeley. It's not super widespread, but there are absolutely individuals who abuse the concept of triggers as a way to give themselves pretext to be cruel to others, to control conversations, or just as something to get righteously indignified about.

This is an issue with the individuals involved and not triggers per se, but just as with other social technologies it's definitely possible to abuse triggers.

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

#306

Post by decwakeboarder » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:52 PM UTC

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.

The "real world" will eat you alive if you can't discuss topics which make you uncomfortable.

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

#307

Post by Erik816 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

ebola1717 wrote: post #187

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 whe…

As someone who sat through four years of classes at The University of Chicago, most of which were liberal arts classes, they would most definitely allow you to argue about the justification of the Holocaust, whether we should return to slavery, and the merits or lack thereof of colonialism. If you can't discuss those things in a class but must merely passively listen as we all agree about why those things are clearly horrible, or even worse just not talk about them because they are so horrible, then you will fail to have confronted those ideas and will have learned nothing.

The existence of an LGBTQ group and their safe spaces is not inconsistent with allowing students to explore the free expression of ideas in the classroom. As the university states, it is not going to tolerate harassment, and there can be a fuzzy line at the extremes. But they are definitely going to protect your right to respectfully state unpopular opinions. Ideas are not off limits; that is the whole point.

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

#308

Post by Erik816 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:56 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…

So your identity determines whether you are entitled to safe spaces?

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

#309

Post by davidf18 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

At a time when many prestigious private schools had Jewish quotas for students and faculty, the U of C did not.

There should never be bans of free speech consistent with that of the First Amendment (i.e, you can't shout "Fire" in a movie theater).

I hope that there is a law passed that universities that block free speech as many have, are not allowed to receive federal funds in the form government grants for faculty, and financial aid for students.

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

#310

Post by lake99 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:58 PM UTC

Torgo wrote: post #297

rayiner wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ide…

They will be even better when we don't infantilize minorities by acting like we need the degenerated versions of these concepts.

To be fair, I don't think it's minorities that are asking for trigger warnings. They are groups with political agendas.