51–60 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we won't have a public debate about war anymore because it might cause a PTSD-induced breakdown in veterans?
We'd still have the debate, but if we know in advance that we're going to show or describe the horrors of war in graphic detail, we'd warn the veterans in the audience beforehand. Trigger warnings aren't censorship, they're common courtesy.
Author arguing for free speech complains about people exercising their speech to disagree with him speaking?
He's arguing about people not allowing him to speak. Did we read the same article?
Although I don't fully agree with the post you responded to, no one was not allowing someone to speak.
I think this is an important discussion to be had. The question of whether ideas like "trigger warnings" should be implemented in academia have good arguments on both sides. On a few of these issues I'm not sure where I stand yet and I'm very interested in hearing intelligent discourse from both sides over the next few years. However, I don't think this is a particularly good article on the topic. It's riddled with c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's arguing about people not allowing him to speak. Did we read the same article?
As far as I understood the article, a student organization made a big fuzz about the abortion debate, prompting the organizers to cancel it. The way I see it, no rights were denied in doing so, and both the students and the author are and were exercising their right to free speech. Although I don't fully agree with the post you responded to, no one was not allowing someone to speak.
I think this is an important discussion to be had. The question of whether ideas like "trigger warnings" should be implemented in academia have good arguments on both sides. On a few of these issues I'm not sure where I stand yet and I'm very interested in hearing intelligent discourse from both sides over the next few years. However, I don't think this is a particularly good article on the topic. It's riddled with c…
I see what you're saying, but I don't see how it could have been done differently. How can you discuss/complain about problematic behavior without mentioning some examples of the behavior in question?
There's definitely good criticisms of arguably (and in my opinion) bad behavior in this article, but it falls a little flat when the author can't restrain himself from tossing out petty insults whenever he's leading into a point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> campaign finance reform WTF? Can we discuss capacities of out dear leader and our allmighty twoparty at least?
Citizens United was primarily about allowing leveraged discussions of such topics in the 1-2 months before Federal primary and general elections. A ban on core political speech, and since the primary season is so long, and the national conventions are just a bit more than 2 months prior to general elections.... Which is exactly why the incumbent establishment was incandescently upset that this decision stuck down par…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens United was primarily about allowing leveraged discussions of such topics in the 1-2 months before Federal primary and general elections. A ban on core political speech, and since the primary season is so long, and the national conventions are just a bit more than 2 months prior to general elections.... Which is exactly why the incumbent establishment was incandescently upset that this decision stuck down par…
Do you really can't talk campaign financing reform as if it was offensive content or call to violence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the good arguments FOR "trigger warnings?"
We impose limitations on Free Speech for libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. (This incomplete list scraped from Wikipedia). The means by which we decide these e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intention may be good, but in practice trigger warnings probably do more harm than good to the very people they are meant to help. See the long discussion at the end of this article [1] with an expert on treating trauma survivors for details. An interesting quote from him: The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most traum…
But the exposure must be controlled, otherwise the person suffering risks making the problem worse. Consider the example of Bob, a hypothetical person who has a phobia of elevators. People tell Bob to face his fears. So, Bob decides to do this. He visits a local mall that has a bank of elevators. As he approaches them his body starts releasing adrenaline. His palms get a bit sweaty. His heart starts pumping a bit fas…
What I believe that articles were getting at was not that Bob needs to be shoved into elevators, but rather Bob does not need to be warned away from situations where elevators might be mentioned. He doesn't need warnings before TV shows cautioning that there may be scenes with elevators, warnings that a control theory lecture will include elevator control examples, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We impose limitations on Free Speech for libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. (This incomplete list scraped from Wikipedia). The means by which we decide these e…
No one has a right not to be offended. And free speech isn't really free if it can't offend. It sounds like the argument for trigger warnings is that some people think they might be harmed by speech. That doesn't sound like a very good reason to try to limit free speech.
Yes this is the principle of offense.
> It sounds like the argument for trigger warnings is that some people think they might be harmed by speech.
Yes this is the principle of harm.
> That doesn't sound like a very good reason to try to limit free speech.
All of our freedoms are granted up until the point where our actions would cause harm to others. At this point our freedoms are infringing on the freedoms of others, and their expressions become restricted. In this regard, speech is and has been no different from any other right - although it sounds like you have an argument for why speech should be allowed even when it causes harm to others?
(Wikipedia on the harm principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)