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’

#71

Post by coddingtonbear » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:11 PM UTC

zyxley wrote: post #29

mikeash wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't decide whether or not I'm playing devil's advocate with this question. In any case, please don't take it too seriously, but I think it might be interesting. Why did you not include a trigger warning about the discussion of rape in your comment?

"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.

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

#72

Post by kazagistar » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

zyxley wrote: post #25

beachstartup wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

more like "club room where people who aren't liked by the club aren't allowed in"

Yes, that's usually the complaint that people who don't like safe spaces add. It always seems to me like the people who trumpet that loudest easily fit into the "don't like the club" category, though.

That is not a counterargument, it is an ad hominem.

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

#73

Post by jordigh » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

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…

> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see."

But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger

Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being offended or mild discomfort that they sound utterly stupid.

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

#74

Post by joesmo » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #5

joesmo wrote: post #3

I think this should be a requirement for any university that wants accreditation and certainly all state-run institutions. This is a bold statement not for the Uni. of Chicago, but for every other university that does not have a similar policy in place. Sorry, but you cannot get a proper education with trigger warnings and safe spaces. Therefore, those institutions that do not have the courage to stand up for educati…

> Sorry, but you cannot get a proper education with trigger warnings and safe spaces. [citation needed]

Citation is not needed because you can't learn something you can't discuss and you can't properly discuss anything with trigger warnings and safe spaces. I guess we traded trigger warnings and safe spaces for logic in school these days.

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

#75

Post by qntty » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

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…

Well the US has had obscenity laws in place until recently. It's just that the people who decided what was "upsetting" were politicians rather than students and had the power to get rid of it completely.

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

#76

Post by Tyr42 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

zyxley wrote: post #39

rapsey wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning? If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discuss…

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.

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

#77

Post by aninhumer » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #15

jpfed wrote: post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

> 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…

Indeed. The term "trigger warning" seems to have been coined to give unjustified moral weight to the idea of content warnings, by implying their absence causes PTSD attacks, rather than just being material upsetting to many people.

And I can't help thinking that, like many ideas from social justice, overly moralising a reasonable idea has made it much less palatable that it might otherwise have been.

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

#78

Post by superuser2 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

It's important to acknowledge that the term "safe space" means different things to different people.

To the Yale protestors (who were widely supported at UChicago) the entirety of university housing at Yale was meant to be a "safe space," so it was incumbent on the university to fire professors who voiced unwelcome opinions in that space.

To many of the people who are angry about this letter, "safe space" means a support-group-like room in a specific place at a specific time, which doesn't interfere with the rest of the university's operations.

I suspect it is the former which Dean Ellison meant to attack. I find it hard to believe that he's trying to shut down, for example, group therapy programs for LGBTQ youth offered by the psychology arm of the university's student health system. But I do appreciate him sending the message, "we're not going to fire professors because you don't like what they said."

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

#79

Post by sp332 » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

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…

When my grandfather got back from WWII, he went to work at a printing press. One day a neon sign fell and shattered just across the room from him. When he became aware of himself again, he had ripped up all of his fingernails trying to dig a foxhole in the concrete floor with his bare hands.

Recovery is always the goal, not keeping someone continually vulnerable. And over time, in more controlled circumstances, exposure therapy can be an effective part of a person's recovery. But you can bet that he kept his eye out for triggers for a while.

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

#80

Post by jtuente » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 7:19 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #35

rapsey wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning? If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discuss…

I think you're missing the part where they are victims, and all we're trying to do is minimize the damage. That's a calculated risk that each person is going to have to take for themselves.

They were victims; they're not actively victims in the moment of a discussion. The damage has already been done. Conversely, you can say that you're helping with the recovery and healing process. But it's important to acknowledge the aspects of the past, present and future as they relate to trauma.