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

421–430 of 444 posts

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

#421

Post by r_smart »

jpfed wrote: post #20
trevin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that it's equally as impossible to set up trigger warning policies. While some trigger warning like the ones you mentioned are valid, the term has been perverted to include all sorts of things[0] where you could get in trouble for talking in public about insects or needles. It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, th…

You don't need a trigger warning policy, necessarily. Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers. This notice goes in the opposite direction. >It's an impossible task to list out and educate people on everything that might possible trouble or offend. Once you open that door, there is no finite end to a list of triggers. It's not necessary to exhaust the full list. Analogously: it's impossible to list…

>Just a culture that promotes being aware of common triggers.

I'd argue we pretty much already have this. Most people are aware of when a delicate topic is delicate and will treat it as such or avoid it, depending on the context. Trigger warnings seem to be a hammer in search of a nail, or more likely to me, something that was perhaps well intentioned at one point that is now just a means of attention seeking.

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

#422

Post by paulcole »

burnitdown wrote: post #376
paulcole wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They will be at your job soon. Publicly shaming you or reporting you to HR for using the wrong word or asking "Did you and your girlfriend do anything fun this weekend?" Be careful on that slippery slope!

I'm not using partner instead of girlfriend just in case some third party might get their fee fees hurt. This is insanity. The linked articles provide many absurd examples. This isn't a slippery slope, this is stupidity personified.

> I'm not using partner instead of girlfriend just in case some third party might get their fee fees hurt. This is insanity.

Really, you're not willing to be mindful of your language to respect someone else's wishes? Also, "fee fees" really shows your level of thought and respect for other people so maybe I didn't need to even ask.

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

#423

Post by r_smart »

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.

At least in the world of electrical engineering, you are quite incorrect. There are masters and slaves all over the place around here.

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

#424

Post by r_smart »

jpfed wrote: post #34
dragonwriter wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. Because they are involve quite similar problems (safe for whom and from what ? Warnings for which specific of the billions of potential PTSD triggers ?) and are typically advocated for together, by the same people, as linked demands, to serve similar broad purposes. > But trigger warnings…

I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. The point of extending the courtesy of trigger warnings isn't that you will, with 100% certainty, prevent anyone from entering a state of psychological distress. That's obviously not attainable. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There's really obvious stuff that instructors could warn about, but aren't. After I posted a similar…

I'm confused. Did she spring the porn on them? Did she just hit play as soon as everyone sat down without preamble or context? The students had no opportunity to object or excuse themselves beforehand? If that's how that actually played out, then that professor is either tone-deaf, or used to students with more...mettle?

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

#425

Post by r_smart »

stephenitis wrote: post #131

Safe spaces and banned trigger words creates the tendency for people to silo themselves in a echo chamber of their own ideas. This manifests itself later on in our population in the form of filtering friends and news who dissent against their opinion. The rise of these recent techniques of protest are more a failure of our high schools and universities to provide sufficient visibility and importance to debate and dis…

If I were to guess, I'd say the problem starts much sooner than high school. I think the coddling begins right away, and continues until college, where it suddenly stops. I think this is at the heart of the problem, and we're just reaping the results of a parenting style adopted ~25 years ago.

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

#426

Post by cmdrfred »

vertex-four wrote: post #413
cmdrfred wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

"we'd really like" is a different thing than "You will be terminated if". The first probably achieves nothing and the second is a form of censorship.

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

#427

Post by r_smart »

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,…

Shouting Fire in a theater is a nonsense example used in a horrible ruling on the first amendment. [0]

[0]: https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...

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

#428

Post by cmdrfred »

vertex-four wrote: post #419
cmdrfred wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 thi…

I talk about history with my friends often, history is full of violence. To not be able to talk about violence candidly basically means you don't discuss history/geopolitics at all. I'm just not a 'how the weather' kind of guy, so our interactions might look different.

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

#429

Post by davidf18 »

x1798DE wrote: post #368
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…

I'm not certain, but I think there was a Supreme Court ruling that said you can't shout, "Fire" in a movie theater as an action of free speech or the First Amendment.

At any rate, people pay good tuition money to get an education and part of an education is the free exchange of ideas.

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

#430

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

That's strictly true but somewhat misdirecting, as much of the controversy arises when they do want it mandated by authority with formal consequences for violations, just that the authorities that they are lobbying are usually not legislators making law.

Post reply on HN