• Trigger Warnings and Seeing Offensiveness in Everything is Hurting College Education
    155 replies, posted
I can't stand how people are using the word "trigger" for their own made up diagnoses and I really fucking hate how people go ahead and take the attention whores seriously. It's demeaning to actual sufferers of PTSD and both my brother, a war veteran suffering from combat related PTSD and my best friend, who also suffers from PTSD, fucking hate these cunts and their "trigger warning" bullshit. PTSD is an extremely serious thing and something I wish people had never started using as a tool to get attention. Good to see that therapists are speaking up against this mistreatment of psychiatry. Hopefully next the LGBT community can speak up against the adding of the entire alphabet to the acronym.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48523549]What happened to hex? Wasn't he quite sane and reasonable a few years back? Now all he does is spout how triggering is a sensible idea. Like, what?[/QUOTE] Nice. Nice. Still pretty sensible. Still fairly sure I'm sane. Having opinions on these matters that aren't "lmao fucking sjws" is not insanity at all. The concept of them is in no way harmful to people who aren't actually effected by them, getting pissed off that people are using them is silly. And sure, Swilly, aversion therapy may not work, but that isn't at all what I proposed with that post. I even pointed out, specifically, that people who have recently gone through trauma might benefit from them for that period. Until someone has come more to terms with an event, it can be hard to tell how they will react to something about that event. Just warning them "hey if you don't feel up to reading this sort of stuff, skip this bit" isn't going to totally ruin their recovery. [editline]23rd August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ajacks;48523179]As a law student, you have to deal with your sensitivity to the subject of rape if you're going to be learning about laws regarding rape, and what legally constitutes rape. You can't leave the room during that segment, or ask your teacher to remove it from the curriculum because it doesn't sit well with you. If you can't cope, you need to find a new degree that you can deal with. It'd like studying to be a microbiologist but not believing or wanting to hear about evolution because your a creationist and don't agree with the institutions views on it.[/QUOTE] And as a victim of something you might not want to be reminded of it until you have received some form of counselling or help to come to terms with it. These warnings are in no way a call to remove content from a curriculum, just a way to make sure someone who hasn't overcome something traumatic doesn't have to suffer undue mental anguish. I'm sure anyone doing a law degree would be well aware of the type of content they may cover, and would understand that they need to overcome their trauma. But in the short term, before they have done that, what harm is there in giving them a heads up that shit might get a bit uncomfortable so they can mentally prepare?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48524274]Having opinions on these matters that aren't "lmao fucking sjws" is not insanity at all. [/QUOTE]Well of course, sjws don't call themselves sjws.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48524231]The article mentions law, is that considered humanities/liberal arts in the US? Over here I don't think it is. I also don't see why you feel the need to convince us that there's no issue at all with these policies using anecdotal evidence when the article does mention several. They're not huge problems but I think they are worth discussing.[/QUOTE] I [I]think[/I] law is classed as a humanity/ soft science in a lot of places. I don't think many unis over here mix it with the normal sciences because the way it works is nothing like the hard sciences.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48524231]The article mentions law, is that considered humanities/liberal arts in the US? Over here I don't think it is. I also don't see why you feel the need to convince us that there's no issue at all with these policies using anecdotal evidence when the article does mention several. They're not huge problems but I think they are worth discussing.[/QUOTE] universities studies/administration departments do shit like this all the time for want of anything especially relevant or essential to do. american university administrations are bloated, overpaid factories for nonsense, and departments and faculties that actually do the work of the university have long learned to outwait their pedantic helicopter idea bullshit i don't know what to tell you, i never got a "trigger warning" when my professors lectured in front of images of dead bodies, i never had an "SJW" interrupt class to clarify their resentment of the misogyny of canon law or rousseau's discourse, i never had anything but cordial, adult, conversations about the dozens of instances of mass rape that i covered in my major, my one women's history class wasn't a circus, it was a great class that stood shoulder to shoulder with any other one in the curriculum down to the conduct of students, i just don't know what to tell you guys other than this is a figment of your paranoia and online incidents coloring real life in false colors
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;48522914]What kind of inbred thinks this is an offensive statement?[/QUOTE] Tumblr bots think this.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48524302], i just don't know what to tell you guys other than this is a figment of your paranoia and online incidents coloring real life in false colors[/QUOTE] Having a great university experiences yourself doesn't mean that the insanity doesn't happen.
Personally I have no problem with that kind of disclaimers, but when students pressure professors to avoid certain subjects instead of choosing to retract themselves is when it goes too far in my opinion. And when those subjects are mandatory to the degree in question I think it goes without saying that every student need to go through said material to pass, and sensitive people should be no exception. What worries me more is that apparently new concept of 'microaggression' which is, according to the article, taught to deans and other school officials, and seems to encourage liberally labeling anything that is remotely related to race or gender as offensive. If that leads to action from the administration's part I can't really see it going very well.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48524322]Having a great university experiences yourself doesn't mean that the insanity doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] kind of like people saying they've never had problems with cops so there is no problem with cops
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48524274]Nice. Nice. Still pretty sensible. Still fairly sure I'm sane. Having opinions on these matters that aren't "lmao fucking sjws" is not insanity at all. The concept of them is in no way harmful to people who aren't actually effected by them, getting pissed off that people are using them is silly. And sure, Swilly, aversion therapy may not work, but that isn't at all what I proposed with that post. I even pointed out, specifically, that people who have recently gone through trauma might benefit from them for that period. Until someone has come more to terms with an event, it can be hard to tell how they will react to something about that event. Just warning them "hey if you don't feel up to reading this sort of stuff, skip this bit" isn't going to totally ruin their recovery. [editline]23rd August 2015[/editline] And as a victim of something you might not want to be reminded of it until you have received some form of counselling or help to come to terms with it. These warnings are in no way a call to remove content from a curriculum, just a way to make sure someone who hasn't overcome something traumatic doesn't have to suffer undue mental anguish. I'm sure anyone doing a law degree would be well aware of the type of content they may cover, and would understand that they need to overcome their trauma. But in the short term, before they have done that, what harm is there in giving them a heads up that shit might get a bit uncomfortable so they can mentally prepare?[/QUOTE] See, the [I]concept[/I] is fine, and honestly I agree with you on this point. It's silly to get pissed about a content warning for graphic violence as that's not something people see/experience every day, nor is it something people might want. But that's really where it should end. How does slapping trigger warnings all over something containing racism or misogyny help anyone? Both of those are very broad issues, and maybe I'm just being insensitive but I hardly see how someone could get a PTSD flashback from a depiction of casual racism. Avoiding discussion of an issue is not how you resolve it, that just doesn't work. The other thing covered here in this article is the entire concept of "microaggressions." There are campuses out there actively punishing students for saying jobs should go to the most qualified person to hold the job. Surely you understand the problem with this? It's not something up for debate - if someone is not qualified for a job then [I]they should not hold that job[/I], regardless of how that makes them feel. Who are we helping by trying to market such phrases as offensive? I'm genuinely curious about that, because I see no possible way for that to be helpful.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48524345]kind of like people saying they've never had problems with cops so there is no problem with cops[/QUOTE] People living in their own tiny world, thinking their reality is the real one. People use anecdotal "doesn't happen to me so there's no problem" too much.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48524165]All the triggering people are turning an actually serious condition into a laughing stock.[/QUOTE] Well yes but I still think whether they're about real things those with ptsd might be triggered by or the dumb shit stupid people on tumblr put trigger warnings in front of are bad. Either way it's a way of not having to deal with how nasty reality is and I don't think it's helpful to hide from shit like that.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48524302]i don't know what to tell you, i never got a "trigger warning" when my professors lectured in front of images of dead bodies, i never had an "SJW" interrupt class to clarify their resentment of the misogyny of canon law or rousseau's discourse, i never had anything but cordial, adult, conversations about the dozens of instances of mass rape that i covered in my major, my one women's history class wasn't a circus, it was a great class that stood shoulder to shoulder with any other one in the curriculum down to the conduct of students, i just don't know what to tell you guys other than this is a figment of your paranoia and online incidents coloring real life in false colors[/QUOTE] Again you're trying to tell me that I'm imagining things and have some kind of paranoid mindset. We're discussing an article from the Atlantic here, not the rumblings of some drunkard in the streets. Despite your personal experience, there are other universities which, if the article is any indication, experience issues with those policies. I really don't see what you trying to depict anyone who reacts to this as some paranoid looner achieves other than make you come off as some kind of haughty snob.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48524302]universities studies/administration departments do shit like this all the time for want of anything especially relevant or essential to do. american university administrations are bloated, overpaid factories for nonsense, and departments and faculties that actually do the work of the university have long learned to outwait their pedantic helicopter idea bullshit i don't know what to tell you, i never got a "trigger warning" when my professors lectured in front of images of dead bodies, i never had an "SJW" interrupt class to clarify their resentment of the misogyny of canon law or rousseau's discourse, i never had anything but cordial, adult, conversations about the dozens of instances of mass rape that i covered in my major, my one women's history class wasn't a circus, it was a great class that stood shoulder to shoulder with any other one in the curriculum down to the conduct of students, i just don't know what to tell you guys other than this is a figment of your paranoia and online incidents coloring real life in false colors[/QUOTE] "Here's my anecdote, none of you went to college so you all have nothing to say."
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;48524348]But that's really where it should end. How does slapping trigger warnings all over something containing racism or misogyny help anyone? Both of those are very broad issues, and maybe I'm just being insensitive but I hardly see how someone could get a PTSD flashback from a depiction of casual racism. Avoiding discussion of an issue is not how you resolve it, that just doesn't work. [/QUOTE] That's another issue I didn't think about. If you start being too broad in your decisions to mark things as potentially triggering, you run the risk of saturating things and defeating the purpose by ending up with legitimately triggering material being drowned in a sea of merely annoying material being characterized as triggering.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;48524348]The other thing covered here in this article is the entire concept of "microaggressions." There are campuses out there actively punishing students for saying jobs should go to the most qualified person to hold the job. Surely you understand the problem with this? It's not something up for debate - if someone is not qualified for a job then [I]they should not hold that job[/I], regardless of how that makes them feel. Who are we helping by trying to market such phrases as offensive?[/QUOTE] Getting punished for things like that I can understand being annoyed by. Someone mentioned earlier that the phrase "jobs should got to the most qualified" is generally accepted as something that it so blatantly obvious it shouldn't be a problem. The phrase however also seems to be used a lot to undermine the concept of equal opportunity programs. Usually when we see things to do with Affirmative Action come up in SH it's some right wing scare-piece about a company not hiring white men over under qualified black women or something. Despite that usually not being the case. 90% of the responses to that will be "well the job should got to the most qualified!!!", despite AA not calling for the opposite of that at all from what I know of it. The concept is quite simple, if you have two equally skilled applicants, but one is a minority group with little representation in your company you should probably hire that one because diversity is never a bad thing. You're still hiring someone qualified for the job. And I know someone is going to bring up that Reddit thing again. But Reddit is and always has been fucking questionable in terms of it's management. They're a weird edge case that might actively be discriminating unfairly. Microagressions seem to be pretty poorly understood (probably because they've only really just started to take off as a thing academics are interested in understanding). But they are hardly an epidemic worth concern over. Maybe it's just a US university thing where they're all run by morons or something, but that kind of stuff doesn't rear it's head much outside of some Student Unions over here. Faculty couldn't give a fuck about it unless they're talking about it academically.
Trigger warnings have their place, but they shouldn't be overused. I never experienced any of kind of PC-padding or trigger warnings during my time in college (in fact one of my professors was openly racist, but because no Arabic people attended the school he was never in hot water for it), but my experience isn't everyone's experience.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48524373]"Here's my anecdote, none of you went to college so you all have nothing to say."[/QUOTE] it's up to you read me as pompous or not but that doesn't change that it's still more empiric than most people's assumptions
These issues sound so American. I've never ever in my life heard that "jobs going to most qualified people" is somehow discriminating. The whole reason we attend universities IS to get more qualified so that you can push the unqualified people away. [editline]23rd August 2015[/editline] (now I didn't read the article just the thread no ban thx)
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48524406]Getting punished for things like that I can understand being annoyed by. Someone mentioned earlier that the phrase "jobs should got to the most qualified" is generally accepted as something that it so blatantly obvious it shouldn't be a problem. The phrase however also seems to be used a lot to undermine the concept of equal opportunity programs. Usually when we see things to do with Affirmative Action come up in SH it's some right wing scare-piece about a company not hiring white men over under qualified black women or something. Despite that usually not being the case. 90% of the responses to that will be "well the job should got to the most qualified!!!", despite AA not calling for the opposite of that at all from what I know of it. The concept is quite simple, if you have two equally skilled applicants, but one is a minority group with little representation in your company you should probably hire that one because diversity is never a bad thing. You're still hiring someone qualified for the job.[/QUOTE] I really don't see how that would work, there's no such thing as equally skilled applicants, or if there is it is such a rare occurrence that its impact would be negligible. Assuming there is a substantial number of cases like these, it would be a discriminatory policy. Diversity can't be a bad thing [i]in a vacuum[/i], but if to attain it people were treated unfairly then it's not at all a goal to reach for. If you systematically choose a 'minority' when faced with equally skilled applicants, that means non-minorities have a slightly lesser chance of getting hired. And if that situation is common enough to warrant a policy it means that discrepancy is not negligible, thus you are actively discriminating against non-minorities. Anyway, even if "I believe the job should go to the most qualified" was the motto of the KKK, it still wouldn't be offensive to say it. Otherwise that would be falling into guilt by association territory.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48524428]I've never ever in my life heard that "jobs going to most qualified people" is somehow discriminating. [/QUOTE] That's because nobody actually says that. Those that do are usually on some obscure blog that gets quoted a shitload because it manages to be a "hot post" in regards to the topic. People latch on and pretend that a couple (probably satirical) posts on Tumblr or Reddit are actually real and represents tens of millions of college students. It's asinine and it's people with a huge kneejerk reaction to the idea that some people are sensitive to certain topics.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48524406]Getting punished for things like that I can understand being annoyed by. Someone mentioned earlier that the phrase "jobs should got to the most qualified" is generally accepted as something that it so blatantly obvious it shouldn't be a problem. The phrase however also seems to be used a lot to undermine the concept of equal opportunity programs. [b]Usually when we see things to do with Affirmative Action come up in SH it's some right wing scare-piece about a company not hiring white men over under qualified black women or something. Despite that usually not being the case.[/b] 90% of the responses to that will be "well the job should got to the most qualified!!!", despite AA not calling for the opposite of that at all from what I know of it. The concept is quite simple, if you have two equally skilled applicants, but one is a minority group with little representation in your company you should probably hire that one because diversity is never a bad thing. You're still hiring someone qualified for the job. And I know someone is going to bring up that Reddit thing again. But Reddit is and always has been fucking questionable in terms of it's management. They're a weird edge case that might actively be discriminating unfairly. Microagressions seem to be pretty poorly understood (probably because they've only really just started to take off as a thing academics are interested in understanding). But they are hardly an epidemic worth concern over. Maybe it's just a US university thing where they're all run by morons or something, but that kind of stuff doesn't rear it's head much outside of some Student Unions over here. Faculty couldn't give a fuck about it unless they're talking about it academically.[/QUOTE] hi [url]https://www.aamc.org/download/321518/data/factstable25-4.pdf[/url] [url]https://www.aamc.org/download/321514/data/factstable25-2.pdf[/url]
I remember when my Psychology teacher in High School showed us Ghost In The Shell for us to discuss what it meant and how we viewed it. If that was done now it would be 'triggering' because 'machine-kin memory ptsd'. Sigh.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48524406]Getting punished for things like that I can understand being annoyed by. Someone mentioned earlier that the phrase "jobs should got to the most qualified" is generally accepted as something that it so blatantly obvious it shouldn't be a problem. The phrase however also seems to be used a lot to undermine the concept of equal opportunity programs. Usually when we see things to do with Affirmative Action come up in SH it's some right wing scare-piece about a company not hiring white men over under qualified black women or something. Despite that usually not being the case. 90% of the responses to that will be "well the job should got to the most qualified!!!", despite AA not calling for the opposite of that at all from what I know of it. The concept is quite simple, if you have two equally skilled applicants, but one is a minority group with little representation in your company you should probably hire that one because diversity is never a bad thing. You're still hiring someone qualified for the job. And I know someone is going to bring up that Reddit thing again. But Reddit is and always has been fucking questionable in terms of it's management. They're a weird edge case that might actively be discriminating unfairly. Microagressions seem to be pretty poorly understood (probably because they've only really just started to take off as a thing academics are interested in understanding). But they are hardly an epidemic worth concern over. Maybe it's just a US university thing where they're all run by morons or something, but that kind of stuff doesn't rear it's head much outside of some Student Unions over here. Faculty couldn't give a fuck about it unless they're talking about it academically.[/QUOTE] Yeah, we have a lot of questionable leadership in our education system, it isn't limited to the college level. Personally I think the whole microaggression thing is asinine, their examples sound like regular old passive-aggressive comments. I don't see the need to introduce a whole new concept for something already understood (and disliked) beyond some mad scramble to seem "progressive." You can't force progress, especially not with idiocy like that. The only problem I've ever had with AA is that while you're right about the number of scare pieces, the very scenario you describe can happen and the system should not allow for that.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48524394]That's another issue I didn't think about. If you start being too broad in your decisions to mark things as potentially triggering, you run the risk of saturating things and defeating the purpose by ending up with legitimately triggering material being drowned in a sea of merely annoying material being characterized as triggering.[/QUOTE] The problem with trigger warnings is that anything can be triggering. Literally anything. I would support warnings of sexual abuse, violence and such in required literature so that people can prepare themselves or even choose an alternative if its something serious but yeah, some people seem to think that being offended is ptsd and believe that their sensibilities need to be catered to. [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48524474] People latch on and pretend that a couple (probably satirical) posts on Tumblr or Reddit are actually real and represents tens of millions of college students.[/QUOTE] I linked a video earlier that had [I]college educators[/I] saying insane shit of that caliber. Mind you that the audience cheered all of them. [editline]23rd August 2015[/editline] You can't just say that the insane wing of progressive politics doesn't exist.
While I understand the differences between legit triggets (Veterans, victims of legit trauma.), and the alternate term used by over-sensative people, I want to say that this article is the primary reason I think I want to wait on going to College for. I simply don't want to hop on campus and have to think that everything I say could result in a rabid SJW (I'm using the term SJW because I can't think of a better term for these kind of people.) walk up to me and start screaming into my face like an upset toddler, and worse have to be censored for it, good literature censored, and even good humor censored. If I did have to go to College soon and I bumped into one of these people, I'd outright just tell them to fuck off with their bullshit, and constantly try to call them out of their bullshit as much as I can.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;48524596]While I understand the differences between legit triggets (Veterans, victims of legit trauma.), and the alternate term used by over-sensative people, I want to say that this article is the primary reason I think I want to wait on going to College for. I simply don't want to hop on campus and have to think that everything I say could result in a rabid SJW (I'm using the term SJW because I can't think of a better term for these kind of people.) walk up to me and start screaming into my face like an upset toddler, and worse have to be censored for it, good literature censored, and even good humor censored. If I did have to go to College soon and I bumped into one of these people, I'd outright just tell them to fuck off with their bullshit, and constantly try to call them out of their bullshit as much as I can.[/QUOTE] jesus christ
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48524615]jesus christ[/QUOTE] I second this sentiment. There's no way pvt Martin can reasonably call anyone else "rabid" after that post. Every single one of the dozen people I know with triggers has "legit trauma" and more likely than not, pvt martin would shout down someone who genuinely needs trigger warnings
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;48524596]While I understand the differences between legit triggets (Veterans, victims of legit trauma.), and the alternate term used by over-sensative people, I want to say that this article is the primary reason I think I want to wait on going to College for. I simply don't want to hop on campus and have to think that everything I say could result in a rabid SJW (I'm using the term SJW because I can't think of a better term for these kind of people.) walk up to me and start screaming into my face like an upset toddler, and worse have to be censored for it, good literature censored, and even good humor censored. If I did have to go to College soon and I bumped into one of these people, I'd outright just tell them to fuck off with their bullshit, and constantly try to call them out of their bullshit as much as I can.[/QUOTE] if [i]this[/i] is the reason you're putting off not going to college, then your career probably wasn't going to go anywhere in the first place [editline]23rd August 2015[/editline] seriously what the fuck
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;48524596]While I understand the differences between legit triggets (Veterans, victims of legit trauma.), and the alternate term used by over-sensative people, I want to say that this article is the primary reason I think I want to wait on going to College for. I simply don't want to hop on campus and have to think that everything I say could result in a rabid SJW (I'm using the term SJW because I can't think of a better term for these kind of people.) walk up to me and start screaming into my face like an upset toddler, and worse have to be censored for it, good literature censored, and even good humor censored. If I did have to go to College soon and I bumped into one of these people, I'd outright just tell them to fuck off with their bullshit, and constantly try to call them out of their bullshit as much as I can.[/QUOTE] lmao no you of all fucking people wouldn't. you'd walk off mumbling "fucking sjws ruining fucking everything" under your breath, log in to facepunch, go straight to fast threads and post about how you shot down a "rabid sjw" today with a sicknasty zing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.