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

391–400 of 444 posts

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

#391

Post by makomk »

rayiner wrote: post #268
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. 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…

When people call for universities to return to being a place for the free and open exchange of ideas, I think this is exactly what many of them want universities to return to being.

Take, for example, the Yale Halloween controversy, where supporters of this ideal fought hard to protect white male students from the idea that their costumes were mocking others because it might make them uncomfortable wearing them, and that violated their free speech somehow.

Or take the conservative activist who was so outraged at a left-wing poem in a newsletter that he barged into the office of a professor involved with it, demanding to know who "approved" the offending article and refusing to leave, and how groups like FIRE and all the other vocal supporters of the free end open exchange of ideas insisted his actions were a valent stand for the freedom of student speech.

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

#392

Post by jaredklewis »

Navarr wrote: post #333
xanderstrike wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a safe space is exactly what you what you said was the problem with free speech though. Any given person's "safe space" will be a place where their opinions are the only ones, so they're not challenged or offended. Safe spaces only work if you set up a safe space for every possible viewpoint, or you ban any form of interaction within the safe space.

It can be, yes. But if you're trying to discuss native american problems and someone just keeps interjecting that focusing on native american problems is racist - then you're not really getting anywhere either - was sort of my point. I don't think they exist to stifle opposing viewpoints, but to at least attempt sane discussion on certain topics that would otherwise not get the opportunity to be discussed.

But wasn't it possible to discuss ideas amongst allies before safe spaces? I think groups like AIM, for example, provide a great forum for such activities. Likewise, I think student advocacy groups are an excellent idea.

What I don't like about the concept of safe spaces–and I say concept because I have never actually experienced one– is that I would prefer universities, which often have connections with government, to have as few censorship powers as possible.

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

#394

Post by sverige »

harmegido wrote: post #312
sverige wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the very act of learning can cause psychological distress. It may involve being forced to consider that some of your long-cherished ideas are wrong. This creates a crisis since either you abandon the wrong idea you've held or you ignore the new information you've acquired. One of the most effective ways of learning is to hear and consider ideas opposed to the ones you currently hold. But these kinds of things…

Your post is an amazing contradiction, all within about 20 seconds. An incredible read! Am I missing some joke or sarcasm? I'm normally pretty good at detecting it in text. How can you advocate for learning to explore all ideas, even if they may seem opposite to what you (or others) may hold and at the same time say its repugnant that a teacher would show a taboo idea in video form?

No joke or sarcasm. While I advocate being exposed to different ideas and opinions, I still think there are some subjects that are not worthy of rational consideration as academic subjects, especially for undergrads.

I recognize this is an unpopular view. To go even further down the unpopular path, I also maintain that many of our colleges and universities have failed in their evaluation of what a formal education should include and exclude. For example, I have had the unhappy experience of hiring many new graduates who cannot write complete sentences, let alone organize their thoughts into some coherent whole with a beginning, middle, and end. I'm told that kind of thing doesn't matter any more, but I disagree. It reflects their thought process, which affects their ability to make good business decisions.

Also, parent post was about the trauma caused when rape victims were exposed to same without warning. Apparently it's not that uncommon to think this subject is taboo for a reason.

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

#395

Post by BurningFrog »

tedks wrote: post #363
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.

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…

If we're trying to communicate and understand the world together, what specific words we use don't matter, only that we agree on what they mean. We could even speak a completely non English language.

If you're instead trying to show which American political tribe you belong to, the concerns you mention become very important.

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

#396

Post by ryanx435 »

tedks wrote: post #363
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.

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…

Found the sjw.

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

#397

Post by nkrisc »

6nf wrote: post #351
comex wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it happens, veterans as a group have a high incidence of PTSD, which is what trigger warnings are supposed to be about.

I'm not aware of any veterans with PTSD ever asking for trigger warnings though.

That doesn't mean they can't benefit from it.

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

#398

Post by wyldfire »

jessaustin wrote: post #326
wyldfire wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Want to be a lawyer ... Perfect example! Law is one career where you can learn everything you need to know by reading books (ok, maybe all of them are that way..). Yet legislators (many lawyers themselves) in several states have introduced new laws to limit licensure only to those who have degrees. This would've excluded notables like Lincoln, Jefferson, Darrow, Marshall.

Jefferson, at least, graduated from the College of William & Mary.

True, he studied law there but was never offered a "degree".

"I see on your C.V. you've written 'The United States Declaration of Independence' -- nice job! Oh but no JD? Tsk. Next!"

EDIT: though he was awarded 'honorary' degrees from several institutions. Would those pass muster these days? ;)

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

#399

Post by michaelbuddy »

vacri wrote: post #375
michaelbuddy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition of political correctness is incorrect. And what you believe about it doesn't make it so.

Google disagrees with you: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Nothing in that relates to 'trigger warnings'. It's nice, though, that you just declare me wrong by fiat, without any evidence to support the definition that you believe (or even what the definition is).

No, political correctness has always been a negative. Your first page google findings are fitting your bias. Like any other political term, it has been written and batted back and forth, occasionally hijacked to try to give it a positive spin.

You're taking an underhanded approach here. "Marginalized" "Socially Disadvantaged" are just buzz words to distract from the definition. Attempting to create a victimized group (straw man) to try to make political correctness a good thing to protect the straw man is disingenuous.

Political correctness is and always will be lying or deciding not to say what many people recognize or experience as truth out of a perceived fear of political rejection, ostracism or whatever dreamt up consequences. The problems continue because ignoring, hiding, refraining from voicing actual problems means that they will never be addressed.

This is political correctness imposed on another person and in this case worthy of a civil rights lawsuit. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-...

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

#400

Post by fdgdasfadsf »

Chathamization wrote: post #166
jbigelow76 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment".

> Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment". Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school. Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 succ…

But to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm or get a research position you had damn well better be used to a free and open exchange of ideas. It is part of the "credentials for employment" that you can handle debate and can handle other people having radically different viewpoints and discussing uncomfortable topics.
Post reply on HN