117 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

I imagine concerts will go through the same thing. Before the crowd sings along to their favorite song while a lady at the far west shouts "Trigger warning!"

E.g.

 

"Move Bi-"

"Trigger Warning!"

"Sorry Ma'am"

 

"Change this album covers. They're too triggering."

 

 

"Not everyone can walk accross the street, Fat Shaming Ableist **** lords!"

 

 

"Someone once drowned in a pool as a baby! This triggers everyones drowned baby PTSD!!!"

 

 

"MISOGYNY AND RACISM!!! Black women are not your property to whiten and advertise, **** lord!"

[Liamv2]

I thought everyone already knew that the entirety of Greek mythology is gods ****** something they shouldn't have. Weirdo's.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

[Inquisitor Recon]

He warned you all, but you didn't listen.

I was also warning against the SJWs before people paid attention too late.

[Cainhurst Crow]

 

[In Exile]

Limiting access to material, or asking for it to be labeled "offensive" is censorship.

 

And if we lived in some alternative reality where this was the subject of the thread, we might be having a discussion about censorship. But this isn't what we're discussing. Asking that content be labelled - not as offensive, but as containing a particular type of content - isn't censorship. The issue here isn't labeling - it's that the content that is being asked to be labelled isn't a "trigger" in any sense that the word is used. 

 

This is what makes the positions taken in this thread so laughable. Instead of actually putting together a cogent objection - such as the fact that the purported triggering content isn't actually triggering within any meaningful sense of the word - what we have is a hyperbolic echo chamber. To whit: 

 

“These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.”

 

This is silly. It's silly not because labeling content is a problem, but because there is an incredibly wide gulf between "subject matter that can trigger an episode of outright PTSD" and "narratives that make people uncomfortable". The article makes this point: 

 

“Alerts have been applied to topics as diverse as sex, pregnancy, addiction, bullying, suicide, sizeism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, **** shaming, victim-blaming, alcohol, blood, insects, small holes, and animals in wigs,” Jenny Jarvie wrote last year in the New Republic. “Certain people, from rapper Chris Brown to sex columnist Dan Savage, have been dubbed ‘triggering.’ Some have called for trigger warnings for television shows such as ‘Scandal’ and ‘Downton Abbey.'”

The article itself points out the origin of the term "trigger": 

 

The phrase can be traced back to the treatment of Vietnam War veterans in the 1980s, according to BuzzFeed’s Alison Vingiano. Psychologists started identifying “triggers” that sent vets spiraling into flashbacks of past traumas.

 

Recognizing that people have endured a great deal of trauma, and that label (meaningless to us, but meaningful to them), can avoid a great deal of suffering is a sensible position. 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 

And if we lived in some alternative reality where this was the subject of the thread, we might be having a discussion about censorship. But this isn't what we're discussing. Asking that content be labelled - not as offensive, but as containing a particular type of content - isn't censorship. The issue here isn't labeling - it's that the content that is being asked to be labelled isn't a "trigger" in any sense that the word is used. 

 

This is what makes the positions taken in this thread so laughable. Instead of actually putting together a cogent objection - such as the fact that the purported triggering content isn't actually triggering within any meaningful sense of the word - what we have is a hyperbolic echo chamber. To whit: 

 

“These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.”

 

This is silly. It's silly not because labeling content is a problem, but because there is an incredibly wide gulf between "subject matter that can trigger an episode of outright PTSD" and "narratives that make people uncomfortable". The article makes this point: 

 

“Alerts have been applied to topics as diverse as sex, pregnancy, addiction, bullying, suicide, sizeism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, **** shaming, victim-blaming, alcohol, blood, insects, small holes, and animals in wigs,” Jenny Jarvie wrote last year in the New Republic. “Certain people, from rapper Chris Brown to sex columnist Dan Savage, have been dubbed ‘triggering.’ Some have called for trigger warnings for television shows such as ‘Scandal’ and ‘Downton Abbey.'”

The article itself points out the origin of the term "trigger": 

 

The phrase can be traced back to the treatment of Vietnam War veterans in the 1980s, according to BuzzFeed’s Alison Vingiano. Psychologists started identifying “triggers” that sent vets spiraling into flashbacks of past traumas.

 

Recognizing that people have endured a great deal of trauma, and that label (meaningless to us, but meaningful to them), can avoid a great deal of suffering is a sensible position. 

 

So you didn't read the whole article, then?

 

No one says that you have to, but don't presume to lecture people one what the "subject of the thread" is if you're not going to bother reading the whole article linked in the OP.

 

The students are using the trigger warning to preface a request allowing students to avoid content they find offensive. And what I referred to as censorship was not the students' request, specifically, but the broader use of trigger warnings as a tool for censorship. The conversation that the rest of us are having is not subject to your definitions that suit you.

[In Exile]

So you didn't read the whole article, then?

 

No one says that you have to, but don't presume to lecture people one what the "subject of the thread" is if you're not going to bother reading the whole article linked in the OP.

 

I did read the article. Let's have a running quote of what these Columbia students have said: 

 

“Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’ is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom,” wrote the four students, who are members of Columbia’s Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board. “These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.”

 

...

 

“During the week spent on Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses,’ the class was instructed to read the myths of Persephone and Daphne, both of which include vivid depictions of rape and sexual assault,” they write. “As a survivor of sexual assault, the student described being triggered while reading such detailed accounts of rape throughout the work. However, the student said her professor focused on the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery when lecturing on the text. As a result, the student completely disengaged from the class discussion as a means of self-preservation. She did not feel safe in the class. When she approached her professor after class, the student said she was essentially dismissed, and her concerns were ignored.”

 

...

 

The students then call on Columbia to “issue a letter to faculty about potential trigger warnings and suggestions for how to support triggered students” and institute “a mechanism for students to communicate their concerns to professors anonymously, as well as a mediation mechanism for students who have identity-based disagreements with professors.” “Finally, the center should create a training program for all professors, including faculty and graduate instructors, which will enable them to constructively facilitate conversations that embrace all identities, share best practices, and think critically about how the Core Curriculum is framed for their students,” the students write.

 

...

 

In the case of the Columbia students, however, they say they want more discussion, not less. A trigger warning on Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” might help a student who has suffered sexual assault stay engaged by offering her a chance to discuss the brutality in the text — not just its beauty. “Our vision for this training is not to infringe upon the instructors’ academic freedom in teaching the material,” the students conclude. “Rather, it is a means of providing them with effective strategies to engage with potential conflicts and confrontations in the classroom, whether they are between students or in response to the material itself. Given these tools, professors will be able to aid in the inclusion of student voices which presently feel silenced.”

 

You might very well disagree with this - that having a discussion about Ovid as brutality rather than as sublime beauty (of a translation, since one imagines they're not reading it in the original Greek) - is somehow an attempt to censor discussion. We could very well have an actual conversation about this issue.

 

But they are not taking the position that the content is offensive. They're taking the position that students are silenced. You might disagree with that position too. But, again, that's their position. 

 

 

The students are using the trigger warning to preface a request allowing students to avoid content they find offensive. And what I referred to as censorship was not the students' request, specifically, but the broader use of trigger warnings as a tool for censorship. The conversation that the rest of us are having is not subject to your definitions that suit you.

 

No, they aren't. You might very well think this is the ultimate consequence of what they're proposing - that having a discussion of this nature about the material is somehow censorship because it shifts the discussion away from whatever it is that a Professor happens to want to lecture on. We could have a meaningful debate on that subject, or a number of other things.Their position is that students avoid these topics when they shouldn't, and they think their proposal will help students engage with the material. I happen to think they're wrong - if they want to have their particularized conversations about the social character of the material, that should be a separate class. But what they're discussing - and what you say they're discussing - are two wholly unrelated things. 

 

The conversation that "the rest of you" are having, lovely echo chamber though it is, is pretty detached from what's being raised. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

If they removed everything that could be a trigger warning in Greek Mythology, all that would be left to discuss is the virgin goddess Athena. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Looks like in exile completely ignored the part of the article specifically listing 2 colleges who have done, word for word, Jeremiah12LGeek describes, and has had those passages quoted to them all the way on page 1.

 

But then again, that narrative that everyone's a hyperbolic jerk is so good though. Why rock that particular boat?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I'm triggered AGAIN.  

As someone with Ottoman ancestry I have the urge to destroy more naked statues of Greek gods.

[In Exile]

Looks like in exile completely ignored the part of the article specifically listing 2 colleges who have done, word for word, Jeremiah12LGeek describes, and has had those passages quoted to them all the way on page 1.

 

No, I haven't. As I said: their idea is stupid, the content they identify is largely innocuous, and the idea that, say, social class requires a warning label because people are uncomfortable (which is quite different from medically demonstrable proof certain descriptions of events can trigger a psychological episode) isn't grounds to do much of anything. That's different, however, from the echo chamber. 

 

But then again, that narrative that everyone's a hyperbolic jerk is so good though. Why rock that particular boat?

 

Let's do a run-up of the quotes: 

 

Someone purge these dumbasses.

I officially declare Western civilization dead. (In response: Indeed, you might say we're the walking dead. I honestly don't know what the **** happened. Till last year I had never heard of sjws and their tumblr crusade( I don't internet much ). Now it's everywhere, when did people become so overly sensitive and self centered?)

Suck it up you sheltered, spoiled brats, the world isn't all about you, you aren't special, the world isn't going to stop talking about bad things just because it may have happened to you.

I don't what the f*ck happened to our universities but it needs to be fixed before we unleash an army of butthurt p*ssies into the world.

Let them devolve into whatever low form of llfe they will become and be utterly destroyed when they try to retake the surface.

We need to purge them.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

"Change this album covers. They're too triggering."

 

 

Definitely a future exhibitioner and rapist.

[Gotholhorakh]

If the search for knowledge requires a trigger warning for you, surely stop wasting your time and get the **** out of university.

 

Better still put a trigger warning 10 feet high over campus gates.

 

As if the rest of us aren't going through life and haven't seen trauma, anyway. I doubt anyone who really has problems really thinks like this anyway - if I went through life avoiding **** that could trigger a flashback, I'd soon be living under my bed. You deal with it, you get on with life, you get help if you have to, you don't relish making a big thing about it to everyone else in the world.

 

I mean everyone deals with stuff in their own ways I guess, but these people with their shouting about what triggers them, for every Tom, Dick and Harry to hear about it are... hard to relate to and I'm being charitable.

[Seraphim24]

None of these things "trigger" me so it's pretty hard to relate to this topic.

 

Even if they did, not sure why that's a bad thing inherently.

[Han Shot First]

How many of these people demanding "trigger warnings" on everything are actual sufferers of PTSD, and not just attention seekers?

 

It's not like PTSD is something new. How is it that our grandparents and great grandparents survived the Second World War and managed to come home and live productive lives, without demanding trigger warnings all over everything? According to the Tumblr crowd that should not be possible.

[Sully13]

[In Exile]

How many of these people demanding "trigger warnings" on everything are actual sufferers of PTSD, and not just attention seekers?

I don't think they're attention seekers. I just think they're conflating discomfort with trauma. Stamping out this type of push in universities doesn't happen without having an actually cogent response to the superficially appealing argument. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I would be a great hillbilly redneck. What a shame I was born on the other side of the world.

[SmilesJA]

This is ridiculous, are people really this sensitive now and days?

[Dermain]

How many of these people demanding "trigger warnings" on everything are actual sufferers of PTSD, and not just attention seekers?

 

It's not like PTSD is something new. How is it that our grandparents and great grandparents survived the Second World War and managed to come home and live productive lives, without demanding trigger warnings all over everything? According to the Tumblr crowd that should not be possible.

 

If I recall correctly, there have been some studies that indicated that it was because of the way civilians viewed veterans of WW2. They were seen as as heroes, people to be respected, and because of that it was easier for them to transition back into society. The History Channel's WW2 in HD series showed interviews with many veterans who seemed (in my opinion) to have symptoms of PTSD when it came to telling their story, but I am unsure if they actually suffered from it. If anything, the veterans that served in the Pacific theater probably would have had a harder time with PTSD because of having to watch Japanese civilians committing suicide, and because they had to use flamethrowers to "clean out" enemy positions in the tunnel systems.

 

I never really had an interest in the Vietnam war, but I think it would be safe to say that the veterans weren't seen in a favorable light by many civilians at the time. 

 

Edit:

 

PTSD was noted during WWI, but it went by the name of shell shock. In regards to WWII, there is the infamous story of General Patton slapping a soldier under his command that was suffering from shell shock.

[Cainhurst Crow]

No, I haven't. As I said: their idea is stupid, the content they identify is largely innocuous, and the idea that, say, social class requires a warning label because people are uncomfortable (which is quite different from medically demonstrable proof certain descriptions of events can trigger a psychological episode) isn't grounds to do much of anything. That's different, however, from the echo chamber. 

 

 

Let's do a run-up of the quotes: 

 

Someone purge these dumbasses.

I officially declare Western civilization dead. (In response: Indeed, you might say we're the walking dead. I honestly don't know what the **** happened. Till last year I had never heard of sjws and their tumblr crusade( I don't internet much ). Now it's everywhere, when did people become so overly sensitive and self centered?)

Suck it up you sheltered, spoiled brats, the world isn't all about you, you aren't special, the world isn't going to stop talking about bad things just because it may have happened to you.

I don't what the f*ck happened to our universities but it needs to be fixed before we unleash an army of butthurt p*ssies into the world.

Let them devolve into whatever low form of llfe they will become and be utterly destroyed when they try to retake the surface.

We need to purge them.

 

You know, at times like this, a well placed "bait" pic is really the best way to go. Wouldn't you agree? But which one to pick, is the question. So many to choose from, and so much range to plain and simple to great balls of flaming references. Which to go with, and which to not? Which applies best to this situation, if any of it applies at all? I'm personally a fan of anime myself, grew up with in equal amounts to normal cartoons thanks to the local tv stations playing them, channel 9 specifically. Bleach had a funny reference with its "bait-kai" super techniques, and of course aizen biat memes are hilarious. But then again as a fan of Fate/Zero the "Infinite Bait Works" just is too funny to pass up. But not everyones into anime, right? So I shouldn't just alienate all those who don't watch it. But then some of them are a bit too focused on 4chan and other sites using the term "anon", which doesn't quite work on a forum like this one. A nice and funny bait pic referencing a Shakespearean work could be good. Yet, it could also be a turn off for anyone looking for a simple joke. Maybe something poking fun at japanese dating sims? Those are always fun to parody, and besides with the way bioware handles its romance, it's practically begging for a "bait-senpai notice me jo-

 

[Sully13]

YOU ARE IN UNIVERSITY.

GROW UP.

Su APPROVES plus 10