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’

#431

Post by scriptkiddy » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

grahamburger wrote: post #235

Chathamization wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to s…

You're right, of course, but I sure wish you weren't. In the world that I dream of we are prepared for an apprenticeship by the time we're halfway through high school and exit the apprenticeship a few years later in to a career. I just don't see any reason that 12 years of schooling isn't enough to get to entry level skill set in any profession. Then we could save Universities for art and intellectual pursuits, spend…

Have you tried looking into whether or not your local community college offers any seminar classes? I took a couple seminar classes at university and a couple at a community college and they were great. It's a class format where there is generally a small lecture up front about the course materials followed by a discussion where everyone is allowed to participate and lead the discussion in any direction(within reason of course). From my experience it was mostly young people at university, but had a good mix of ages at the community college. I think I learned more from a single seminar class I took on history than I did from my two years of traditional history classes in college.

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

#432

Post by scriptkiddy » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

leroy_masochist wrote: post #263

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think this is a consideration worth extending to veterans, and I am dismayed by the fact that many vets have embraced the culture of competitive victimhood that has infected much of American popular discourse. That seems a bit callous. Care to elaborate? I don't think they are usually framing these as "demands", and I don't see how asking for this consideration necessarily crosses into "competitive victimho…

Elaboration as follows: I think that people putting signs on their lawn asking others to be considerate in their fireworks usage is less an effort to avoid PTSD triggers and more a misguided attempt to gain attention and recognition. It also has the effect of reinforcing the "veterans are damaged goods" narrative that is pervasive through much of our popular culture. More generally, PTSD is not what most vets have, i…

I really like the language you used here.

I don't think veterans are the best example for this point, but I totally understand what you're trying to say. I say this because I've never had someone legitimately and purposefully try to end my life. I have no idea what that feels like. Therefore, there are some topics of discussion that I avoid when I'm around combat veterans.

I think your comment about "special snowflakes" hits the nail on the head. I've been using that phrase for years to describe the type of people that push the "trigger warning" and "safe space" rhetoric at universities and on the Internet. These people, for the most part, are not victims of significant trauma of the type to actually cause the types of disorders for which the term "trigger" was originally defined in the psychological community. These people are living the life of what I like to call "perpetual victim-hood" in order to garner attention and give meaning to their lives. These people choose to take this route because the other paths to a meaningful life are more difficult and require much more effort. Why actually invent something or do meaningful research when you can complain on the Internet and garner millions of followers who throw continuously resonating rhetoric into your own personal echo chamber?

This has become a bit of a rant. I apologize for that. I just get very frustrated with these kinds of things because I believe it stifles the spread of new ideas and hinders progress.

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

#433

Post by cristiandonosoc » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

Tyr42 wrote: post #76

zyxley wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about trigger warnings requires immediately jumping down the slippery slope of putting "WARNING: CHEESE INSIDE" on the refrigerator door.

Though we do put "Warning: may contain peanuts" on bags of roasted peanuts, so it's not like we haven't done some sliding before.

People can die from peanuts though. It was not there on a whim (though I would argue is more to avoid lawsuits)

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

#434

Post by vacri » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

michaelbuddy wrote: post #399

vacri wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm taking an underhanded approach? You're the one that just said "no, you're wrong", with no evidence, then just handwave away some evidence that I present, dismissing it by fiat as well.

> Political correctness is and always will be...

Horseshit. Like any movement, some people go too far. But as a counter-example, in one of his shows, Dara O'Briain heard someone in the audience yell out "Yeah, fuck PC!", to which he replied "Yeah, fuck those people and their manners". The bulk of PC behaviour is very good, it's just the extremes that stand out, like with anything.

And seriously, quoting a Fox News article in support of what you have to say? You do know that their 'Fair and Balanced' slogan is just an ironic joke that they use? I use the relatively neutral Google to support my argument, and you use the frothy, proven liars of the extreme right wing Fox News? Yeah, I'm the one taking the underhanded approach here...

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

#435

Post by joesmo » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

norea-armozel wrote: post #409

collyw wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you do in your own private office is your own business. No one cares. What the rest of us care about is what goes on in the classroom. I think you're missing the point completely by arguing for something that no one else here is talking about.

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

#436

Post by tedks » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

yawaramin wrote: post #369

tedks wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 hop…

Why should anyone be cut any slack? We can all clearly see the trend of moral progress and we should all be able to extrapolate from it. Progressivism wins and reactionism loses. But even with a myopic view of history, you have to be truly willfully blind to ignore the liberatory struggles that have existed as long as oppression. Slaves have always revolted.

There is nothing "post-modern" about this either. My ideologies are as modernist as they come, and it's clear to me that the ancient Greeks were in no way in favor of some platonic ideal of open, free discourse. They didn't let allow women or slaves in their open, free discourse, and even if they did, but shouted them down (as antagonists of safer spaces are doing in this thread, the University of Chicago, and virtually every other space, because oppression is the default, liberation is something you have to actively build), that would not make the discourse any more free or open. You're not being "anti-postmodern," you're just being willfully blind of savage inequities in the institutions you're holding up as examples. If you didn't want that contradiction examined you shouldn't have spoken up. (And don't even think about complaining about being called out for this -- what do you want, some ``safe space'' where you can just pat yourself on the back with other slavery apologists?)

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

#437

Post by nostrebored » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #294

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 is actually a softening of extremism How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denyi…

Climate Science is actually an interesting intersection of these issues. "Safe space"-style rhetoric has been used to no platform people who deny global warming. The government does not fund research into any climate science that looks for an alternate explanation.

Unfortunately, the combination of these two things makes it nearly impossible to be a climate-scientist who disagrees with the herd. Even if you could overcome the massive cultural hurdle, you have society and the government to deal with as well.

Which makes me skeptical, but I still think that it's safest to heed the precautionary principle.

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

#438

Post by Chathamization » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:17 AM UTC

grkvlt wrote: post #401

Chathamization wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 classifica…

You left out this part:

> But the change still irks Ms. Finley; she must mark down her arrival each day, her half-hour of lunch and the time she leaves to go home.

> “It’s a demotion,” she said. “No one wants a demotion. We want to be treated like we deserve. But it’s true. I don’t have a degree.”

Nathalia Holt, a science writer who wrote a book about Finley and others, also considers it a demotion:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-women-who-brought-...

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

#439

Post by tedks » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 1:54 AM UTC

rsync wrote: post #383

tedks wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You don't think people are capable of being traumatized by pregnancy, death, or insects? Personal injury and insects are among the most common phobias and pregnancy should be fairly obvious as to why it's on that list (I don't want to elaborate because that could be traumatizing). Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediate…

"Maybe you should try having more empathy for oppressed groups and individuals rather than writing off anything you can't immediately connect to your own experience as infantile." None of the items I listed involve oppression or special subgroups of people. They are basic components of the human condition. An inability to deal with the basic aspects of being alive is, ipso facto, infantile.

Pregnancy predominantly effects women. If I need to argue that women are oppressed, I don't think we can have a discussion. Phobias effect the neurodivergent and your dismissal of this is ableist.

You're inserting your own value system, via the word "basic." It's indisputable that anything is an "aspect" of "being alive," but whether something is too "basic" to warrant consideration is entirely your construction. It is reactionary to dismiss oppressed peoples' self-descriptions of their oppressions. It would be progressive of you to listen to the oppressed and learn how to be a better ally. Do you want to be reactionary and backwards-thinking or progressive and forwards-thinking? How do you want to be remembered?

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

#440

Post by internaut » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

tedks wrote: post #436

yawaramin wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hop…

Why should anyone be cut any slack? We can all clearly see the trend of moral progress and we should all be able to extrapolate from it. Progressivism wins and reactionism loses. But even with a myopic view of history, you have to be truly willfully blind to ignore the liberatory struggles that have existed as long as oppression. Slaves have always revolted. There is nothing "post-modern" about this either. My ideolo…

> We can all clearly see the trend of moral progress and we should all be able to extrapolate from it. Progressivism wins and reactionism loses

Many people do not agree with that and not just reactionaries. A majority of philosophers (natural + unnatural) and religions in history would have explained their world by cycles. There are a great many events, many disturbing to the happy-go-lucky narrative that the Progressivism Forever hypothesis fails to explain.

I take the point that Cthulhu swims slowly leftwards but without understanding why it is that he does so it is dangerous to extrapolate for the next 300 years.