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’

#361

Post by michaelbuddy » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:16 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #327

ctlby wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"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.

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

#362

Post by icelancer » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:18 AM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #191

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…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't universities been designating their entire campuses as "safe spaces"? Disinviting speakers and silencing students whose world views are insufficiently progressive? Or perhaps these issues are distinct, and I'm mistaken?

Sure, a lot of the liberal-leaning authoritarian-left ones have been. The University of Chicago is about as far from that as it gets.

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

#363

Post by tedks » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:19 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #320

superuser2 wrote: post #78

It's important to acknowledge that the term "safe space" means different things to different people. To the Yale protestors (who were widely supported at UChicago) the entirety of university housing at Yale was meant to be a "safe space," so it was incumbent on the university to fire professors who voiced unwelcome opinions in that space. To many of the people who are angry about this letter, "safe space" means a sup…

Yeah, all these words mean different things to the Social Justice/Progressive left and the rest of us. It's one of the surest tells that a movement is wrong when they refuse to use the regular meanings of words and start redefining them in their own usage. People who are right never have to resort to such contrivances.

Which is why I'm sure you use the word "colored" (or worse) instead of african/african-american, homosexual instead of gay, tranny instead of transwoman/transman, and similar?

After all, words are just irrelevant symbol strings on top of a meaning, right? If you're not really racist, it shouldn't matter if you only ever refer to people of the global majority by slurs. The surest tell a movement is wrong is when they refuse to use the regular meanings of words.

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

#364

Post by michaelbuddy » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:20 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #284

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…

> 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.

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

#365

Post by blhack » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:20 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #344

BurningFrog wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, all these words mean different things to the Social Justice/Progressive left and the rest of us. It's one of the surest tells that a movement is wrong when they refuse to use the regular meanings of words and start redefining them in their own usage. People who are right never have to resort to such contrivances.

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.

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

#366

Post by s_q_b » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:20 AM 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…

This is simple.

"Trigger warnings" are a form of censorship. "Safe spaces" are a form of self-segregation. Both are anathema to the academy.

To address the proposed censorship policy first, universities are the birthplace of free speech. Free exchange of ideas is absolutely essential for the transfer and furtherance of human knowledge. Both instructors and students must be able to state their ideas without fear of reprisal.

With regard to so-called "safe spaces," in my experience they are little more than ethnic enclaves with University funding. Whatever their original underlying rationale, "safe spaces" formed based on race, nationality, ethnic identity have become the norm.

Further, universities are not supposed to be comfortable. They are designed to confront our deepest beliefs, to intermingle people of vastly different backgrounds, and to teach not only technical skill, but the ability to cooperate with those with whom we have little in common. They are supposed to submerge people of different backgrounds in the same environment.

If you are comfortable, you are doing it wrong.

Finally, who determines who deserves a "safe space" and what requires a "trigger warning"? Inevitably the answer is the ever-expanding administration. The concept that these hired bureaucrats should be policing faculty speech is both inane and dangerous.

This new brand of political correctness ends with the shattered careers of educators. It ends with students educated about a reality that doesn't actually exist.

It ends with censored education.

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

#367

Post by icelancer » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:24 AM UTC

mankash666 wrote: post #205

How did universities evolve from spaces meant to evoke controversial and provocative thought (like the birth of the free speech movement at UC Berkeley) to the "safe spaces" of today? If a university is meant to enrich you, one worthy lesson is the ability to "agree to disagree in a cordial fashion". If you disagree or feel threatened by a line of thought, make your voice heard. Receding into a safe space won't prepa…

Because the "free speech" advocates never were. They were counter-culturists who got their way and want to protect what is theirs. They were always authoritarians.

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

#368

Post by x1798DE » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:26 AM UTC

davidf18 wrote: post #309

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,…

> 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).

Freedom of speech and the First Amendment are two different things (and I'll note that there is no limiting clause in the first amendment), and I think it would be helpful if people realized this. Freedom of speech is a broader principle that is (IMO) a good idea independent of any legal enshrinement of the law.

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

#369

Post by yawaramin » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:30 AM UTC

tedks wrote: post #355

yawaramin wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very narrow view of universities and higher learning throughout history. The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority.

>The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority Yes, all those slave-owning Greeks and Arabs were really the pinnacle of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment. There was definitely no social model they intended to enforce on others, and their universiti…

Huh, I had a feeling someone would do a post-modernist-style critique of ancient higher learning academies. Look, no one is saying that ancient societies were perfect; but seeing as they literally invented the concepts of a platonic institute for higher learning and for the gathering of knowledge for human progress, I think we can cut them some slack for being inhabitants of their eras. The same way that, gosh, I hope your descendants cut you some slack for being an inhabitant of a savage era of worldwide conflict, poverty, materialism and food shortage, not to mention environmental degradation.

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

#370

Post by philovivero » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:34 AM UTC

coddingtonbear wrote: post #71

zyxley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mention of rape" and "discussion of rape in enough detail to cause discomfort" are not the same thing.

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.

Very much not generally nor always.

Source: I am a professional high-volume database guy doing this stuff since the mid 1990's and still deeply embedded with it now.

There are projects that have chosen other nouns, and they have ridden the wave of publicity around this, but by my estimation* more than 90% of database-related projects still use master/slave.

*as in I haven't done any formal record-keeping, nor will I.