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’

#411

Post by talmand » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:28 PM UTC

teacup50 wrote: post #315

jonlucc wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.

Protesting the speaker's ideas is always fine. Protesting the speaker's existence is difficult to intellectually justify as a healthy exchange of ideas, including critique. These days, what we see is a lot of the latter -- up to and including attempting to prevent attendance of the event -- and very little of the former.

I've seen cases on college campuses of obvious criminal activity, although usually minor, that is excused because they happen during a protest.

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

#412

Post by kuschku » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

mercer wrote: post #404

kuschku wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It’s severely loaded in German, and how’d you teach students about "leader/follower" without translating that part?

There’s something like other languages, which you translate to for documentation or teaching purposes, which means the German material will either have only this one in english (which leads to everyone immediately realizing why), or just using Führer.

That’s not in any way solving the issue.

For every word, there is a context in which it is offensive. Just stop caring about that, instead of trying to do the impossible for no benefit.

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

#413

Post by vertex-four » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #406

vertex-four wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

Policy isn't law, by definition. "Hey, we'd really like our employees to be relatively tactful when they bring up things that are very likely to upset some of our students due to their experiences" wouldn't be very hard to say.

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

#414

Post by weberc2 » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

icelancer wrote: post #362

weberc2 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, my comment wasn't about University of Chicago specifically, but about American universities generally. Thanks for the clarification though, I wasn't aware. :)

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

#415

Post by weberc2 » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

marktd wrote: post #345

weberc2 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be fine with this if it were applied equitably. As it stands, centrist and conservative students have been expected to endure progressive indoctrination, and they've done so relatively quietly up until it their speech and activities began to be prohibited (I believe it was UIC where someone chalked "Trump 2016" on the sidewalks, and students tried to have it prosecuted as a hate crime).

FWIW, UChicago is known for having one of the most conservative economics departments in the country/world. Over 50% of UChicago students major in econ (often as part of a double major), though most UChicago students are liberals.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. :)

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

#416

Post by weberc2 » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #407

weberc2 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Wow, this surprises me, as I've been surrounded by Christians most of my life. I'm less surprised by the media, however--they're not very charitable in their representations of Christians (e.g., the Starbucks cup fiasco was literally one guy complaining about the cup design, but the media made it out to be some sizable portion of Christians). At any rate, do you perceive anti-PC pressure to be so prevalent as to be a legitimate concern? Do you think it would sway the speech of the average person toward legitimately offensive terms?

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

#417

Post by stillsut » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #149

jordigh wrote: post #27

One thing that bugs me is that people think trigger warnings are to make sure people don't get offended. Being triggered is not the same thing as being offended. Being triggered is about having a fucking panic attack, hyperventilating, feeling like you're having a heart attack and you're about to die . Panic/anxiety attacks are not a silly little thing. They were portrayed somewhat accurately in Netflix's recent Jess…

Even if a meaningful percentage of the people clamoring for trigger warnings had a legitimate psychological condition like PTSD (which, based on my interactions with such people at a large university, they don't), making everyone else accommodate their emotional state is not a rational, mature approach. If you have a problem, seek to treat it; don't try to foist it on everyone else.

In Silver Linings Playbook, Bradley Cooper is triggered into a state of rage by his wedding song. This is due to it being a reminder of his wife's betrayal. Yet his psychiatrist purposely plays the song in his waiting room when Cooper comes in for a visit.

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

#418

Post by r_smart » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 2:53 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…

Have you ever listened to Ben Shapiro? That the content of his talks can be labeled as hate speech is the very problem with the idea of having hate speech be a thing. It rapidly becomes "Anything that disagrees with the majority, regardless of facts."

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

#419

Post by vertex-four » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 3:00 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #406

vertex-four wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Honestly... if you're talking about rape and slavery on a regular basis in casual conversation, you live in a completely different world from mine. I try and keep my friends' preferences in mind while around them - remembering that they don't like talking about certain things is as easy as remembering their hobbies, jobs, or how much milk and sugar they take in their tea, to me.

> If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship.

Funnily enough, I was at the Edinburgh Fringe this month, and made a special attempt to find comedians and acts who I disagreed with strongly. Result? That was really difficult to find - I had more to discuss with the liberal types than anyone who was explicitly trying to be "edgy" or "not PC". Comedians have mostly bought into the "punching up vs punching down" thing as much as anyone else. Turns out it usually makes for better jokes.

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

#420

Post by r_smart » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 3:05 PM UTC

nikcheerla wrote: post #386

tedks wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably very easy for a rich white man to say. If you have no reason to use a safe space, and are bothered by being considerate to people who have had to live entire lifetimes of oppression for their gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc., it's very easy to be dismissive of basic progressivism in such a way. But it's 2016, and the new generation that is coming to power is going to do away with the concept of…

This comment scares me in a way I can't really put my finger on. Maybe it's the implicit assumption that oppression outweighs everything else – i.e someone who is black ipso facto lives a worse life than someone who is white, disregarding all other factors. I feel like if a critical majority of people actually believed that all colleges were just "factories of oppression, sexual assault, and white supremacy", then we…

The other implication of this that never gets acknowledged: If modern US colleges are all these horrible things and widely known to be left leaning, then why are the students mostly all leftists? Isn't there something rotten in the institution if it aligns with you ideologically and yet is an engine of the oppression you rail against?