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’

#401

Post by grkvlt » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 7:45 AM UTC

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…

> Susan Finley. After 46 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree

This is rather disingenuous. According to an article in the NYT [1] she just had her job title changed in 2004, from 'Engineer' to 'Engineering Specialist.' Her salary and status did not change. See the excerpt below:

    Instead, Ms. Finley, who never finished her degree, fell
    into a newly created classification: engineering
    specialist, an hourly position.

    Her overall pay did not change, and she is now eligible
    for overtime.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/science/space/nasa-juno-su...

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

#402

Post by collyw » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 7:54 AM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #148

cmdrfred wrote: post #60

What I find rather interesting, is that throughout human history we never had a need for trigger warnings until now. We've had slavery, 2 world wars, famine, countless horrors inflicted on a countless number of people. Nobody asks for it. Then I look to the third world there we have things like female genital mutilation, are the women who had that horror put upon them concerned with trigger warnings? Nope. Not as far…

Gotta find something to complain about when life is going so well or when life is not going so well but you have no control over the things that make it fail. People today, at least in the US, are incredibly scared of all manner of fiction. Whether you think your supermarket will be the next ISIS target or you're actively waiting for the end of the world which you're sure will come in your lifetime, you're scared. An…

No but the oppressive left mindset of banning everything they disagree with seems to be gaining traction.

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

#403

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 9:49 AM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #267

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A trigger warning is not avoidance. No one is advocating avoidance, that is the straw man here.

I repeat myself: "Obviously, trigger warnings provide a useful tool for people to manage their own exposure to these panic attacks."

This allows for simple acts such as taking anti-anxiety medication beforehand or sitting at the end of a row to allow you to leave a lecture unobtrusively if you need to.

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

#404

Post by mercer » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 9:54 AM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #259

barsonme wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The projects I've seen have gone with "leader/follower" https://github.com/django/django/commit/8a95b4fca793eeb8adce...

So, the solution is to literally use Führer instead of Master? That’s a great choice, not only reprinting tons of literature, changing tons of code, but also choosing a Nazi analogy instead! Every word triggers someone, society can’t be expected to adapt to anyone. And I’ll continue to use Master/Slave, and continue to support the Sinter Klaas and Zwarte Piet tradition in the Netherlands.

No, it's literally to use 'leader'. Not a German word that has a rather specific meaning when used in languages outside of German (although I suppose it's at least somewhat loaded in Germany too).

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

#405

Post by mikekchar » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 10:43 AM UTC

collyw wrote: post #215

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…

Its not tough at all. So called trigger warnings never existed until recently and very few people had problems. I never heard of anyone breaking down in class due to difficult subject matters in my 5 years at university (or after).

It happens. It happened in a high school class I was teaching once. Out of the blue my student just started crying. I tried to ask her what the problem was, but it made it worse. I later found that it was a PTSD issue, but I never did find out exactly what triggered it (and I don't remember exactly what we were talking about). The student eventually had to drop my course. She wrote me a very nice letter apologising profusely and saying that she thought I was a good teacher, but that she couldn't continue with the class.

Having said that, I'm not sure a trigger warning is necessarily a good idea. It's a pretty serious situation and I don't think that you could come up with a blanket solution that would work.

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

#406

Post by cmdrfred » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 12:08 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #239

cmdrfred wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking is a quite different than what is being demanded by people today. People who advocate for 'trigger warnings' want it enforced by law as far as I understand. My question is still unanswered, what changed?

No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. They want people they interact with to be polite enough to take their needs into consideration. That's it. If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and…

>No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law.

So you believe that 'trigger warning' advocates support the University of Chicago decision then, by not having a formal rule in place in regards to them?

>If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and look after yourself"?

Depends, a friend in a one on one conversation. Sure but I might find the person difficult to talk to as I have to be on eggshells all the time. If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship.

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

#407

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:02 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #331

Solarsail wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the GP, but referring to the more broad anti-PC movement... Lets say The War On (the war on) Christmas. Fear of being PC in a context like that may work out as somebody avoiding the term "Hanukkah", even while speaking about / to a Jewish person, for fear of papering over Christmas, or looking like they're trying to change the name of the holiday. Some other anti-PC things, like use of the term "black people" in…

Thanks for explaining that. Is this a thing that happens? I've heard of Christians grumble when the PC crowd demands that some business/school/etc stop using Christmas-specific greetings/decorations/etc. I've also heard white people grumble when the PC crowd insists everyone use a new designation for 'African Americans', but I've never heard of anyone actually exerting social pressure on others to use un-PC terms. In…

My experiences (including through the American mass media) are the reverse of yours where Christmas is concerned. I've literally never seen someone attacked for references to Christmas, but i have seen a larger faction complaining about a "War on Christmas" and attacking people and institutions for using genetic holiday greetings, etc., and not specifically acknowledging Christmas, even sometimes attacking, on this basis, institutions which do specifically acknowledge Christmas out of hypersensitivity.

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

#408

Post by norea-armozel » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:02 PM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #382

norea-armozel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never said anything like that, but to your point, who decides what's abusive?" The given student association has a say in who it allows as members and as guests in to their private spaces. This has nothing to do with professors deciding to analyze the work of the Marquis de Sade (sp?). It's more about saying these associations have legal autonomy from the university itself when it comes to governing their private sp…

A classroom (or any other place at a university) is not a private space ruled by students. It is the university's space that it uses to educate students who purchase an education from the university. The university has complete control and a university, like the U of Chicago, should exercise said control to promote learning and remove people who object to teaching such objectionable things as (but not limited to) Ame…

1. Classrooms aren't private student association settings (normally).

2. Any offices rented by a student association or other organization by law are considered private. The standing of the university as a leasing organization doesn't change because of it being a university. The same laws apply to it with regard to commercial and residential rentals as any other landlord. Which means the following: if you don't want someone in your office you don't have to let them in. That includes visitors to the university, students, and police officers without a warrant just to name three off the top of my head.

3. Nothing I've said so far applies to professors other than their right to issue content warnings or accurate descriptions for the courses in question. Trust me, I've always approved of accurate course descriptions because the biggest failure of inaccurate ones is the defined list of required books to purchase at the official university book store (which has only so much time and money to get the books in the first place). If a professor can't be bothered to fill in the course description and required reading materials in advance then maybe that professor should get out of the teaching business? Wild idea I know! Which includes trigger warnings on issues which are still even in the public are considered controversial or shocking topics. If that upsets you then I guess you better tell the MPAA and other organizations to stop "censoring" themselves.

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

#409

Post by norea-armozel » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:12 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #402

joesmo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta find something to complain about when life is going so well or when life is not going so well but you have no control over the things that make it fail. People today, at least in the US, are incredibly scared of all manner of fiction. Whether you think your supermarket will be the next ISIS target or you're actively waiting for the end of the world which you're sure will come in your lifetime, you're scared. An…

No but the oppressive left mindset of banning everything they disagree with seems to be gaining traction.

Yeah because it's oppression to have student associations who have their own private offices and rented spaces to for their members and not for strangers looking to "debate" the association. What's next, folks, demand that you debate a pastor at a church because you're an atheist (or vice versa, a pastor demands the right to debate a biology professor at the college)?

Your right to "speech" only applies to the public spaces of the State. So stop trying to expand free speech to mean "freedom to scream at people whenever you want."

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

#410

Post by ctlby » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:23 PM 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…

Good point, my statement is specific to the US.