Life Is “Triggering.” the Best Literature Should Be, Too(newrepublic.com)
newrepublic.com
Life Is “Triggering.” the Best Literature Should Be, Too
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121790/life-triggering-best-literature-should-be-too
51 comments
Your comparison is hyperbolic for two reasons.
First, most universities are NOT censoring content or attaching warnings to texts. Period. This is obvious from the article.
Second, there's a difference between warnings and censorship. A few student groups are asking for warnings -- mostly about graphic accounts of rape in texts assigned in required courses -- not changes to the curriculum. Again, this is obvious and explicit in the article. And student groups can ask for whatever they want.
So, no. Even taking this article on face value, "this" (whatever this is) is not how "American universities "really are these days". And it's not even what student activists are asking for, by and large.
PS: Even if it were "this way", it's unclear to me what political movement such non-censorship is supporting. It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape. I'm not saying it's a good policy option, but excuse me if I roll my eyes when you compare it to a powerful tool of political oppression. Even the author of this opinion piece doesn't go that far. He basically just says "yeah there are jerks out there who are gonna make rape jokes, so you better grow a thick skin."
First, most universities are NOT censoring content or attaching warnings to texts. Period. This is obvious from the article.
Second, there's a difference between warnings and censorship. A few student groups are asking for warnings -- mostly about graphic accounts of rape in texts assigned in required courses -- not changes to the curriculum. Again, this is obvious and explicit in the article. And student groups can ask for whatever they want.
So, no. Even taking this article on face value, "this" (whatever this is) is not how "American universities "really are these days". And it's not even what student activists are asking for, by and large.
PS: Even if it were "this way", it's unclear to me what political movement such non-censorship is supporting. It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape. I'm not saying it's a good policy option, but excuse me if I roll my eyes when you compare it to a powerful tool of political oppression. Even the author of this opinion piece doesn't go that far. He basically just says "yeah there are jerks out there who are gonna make rape jokes, so you better grow a thick skin."
It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape.
Is that really a reasonable request in a literature class? Does the same apply to any traumatic event and any field of study -- for example, if a medical student was robbed at knifepoint, should he be given advance warning about seeing blood or cut skin...?
The quoted passage specifically mentions "people of color or students from a low-income background" in addition to survivors. How is that meant to be interpreted? What kind of writing do poor students need to be protected against?
Is that really a reasonable request in a literature class? Does the same apply to any traumatic event and any field of study -- for example, if a medical student was robbed at knifepoint, should he be given advance warning about seeing blood or cut skin...?
The quoted passage specifically mentions "people of color or students from a low-income background" in addition to survivors. How is that meant to be interpreted? What kind of writing do poor students need to be protected against?
My point was that comparing warnings with Orwellian censorship is hyperbolic.
The first question you ask is already covered well in other discussion threads.
The second question I don't have an answer to. But that's the problem with trying to have productive conversations about a broad statement from a student group instead of discussing current and proposed concrete policies/policy proposals. In general, unless there's a concrete policy proposal on the table, we should tend to assume the best of people and avoid conjuring up Orwellian nightmares out of vague statements.
The first question you ask is already covered well in other discussion threads.
The second question I don't have an answer to. But that's the problem with trying to have productive conversations about a broad statement from a student group instead of discussing current and proposed concrete policies/policy proposals. In general, unless there's a concrete policy proposal on the table, we should tend to assume the best of people and avoid conjuring up Orwellian nightmares out of vague statements.
I'm getting off the topic, but my friends that referee high-level children's sports were talking about how taunting rules and trash talk have changed over the years. In the past decade or two, they're really tried to stamp out racial and sexual trash talk. Now they're encouraged to watch out for trash talk regarding economic class. The reasoning is two-fold. First, kids are getting smarter. If you call someone a racial slur you get kicked out of the league, but maybe you can tell them their mother's on welfare or their dad is an illegal immigrant. Second, children's sports are so much about money. High-level children's sports are pay-to-play. Top-tier club teams in many sports can cost $10k/year or more. The fact that there are any lower-income kids in the leagues at all is kind of surprising. Usually the less talented, richer kids are subsidizing a handful of more talented poorer kids. Some kids will do whatever it takes to get an edge or maybe even get the other teams best player to throw a punch and get kicked out.
(I just accidentally downvoted you. Sorry.)
The article mangles two concepts:
1) Trigger Warnings
2) Safe Spaces
Both of these are being misused in some universities. Providing a warning to vulnerable people so that they can keep themself safe is fair enough. But some people point to the safe space policy and suggest that the trigger warning is not sufficient and that the material should not be taught.
The article mangles two concepts:
1) Trigger Warnings
2) Safe Spaces
Both of these are being misused in some universities. Providing a warning to vulnerable people so that they can keep themself safe is fair enough. But some people point to the safe space policy and suggest that the trigger warning is not sufficient and that the material should not be taught.
Depending on the university, it's been like this for quite some time. I remember pro-War protesters at my university being censured for "violating university speech code" back in 2001. We were allowed time off from our classes to protest going to war--even allowing professors to cancel classes--but any attempts to distribute pamphlets or discuss the opposing opinion was actively shut down. I've since completely changed my opinion on the war, but that doesn't change my opinion that they should have been allowed to voice their opinion.
Later, in a slightly unrelated event, the university was successfully sued to remove the speech code from the code of conduct: https://www.thefire.org/cases/shippensburg-university-speech...
<strike>IIRC, that particular case was about religion-oriented groups on campus, where a Christian organization that didn't allow Muslim members was banned, even though there was also a Muslim organization that didn't allow Christians that was allowed to remain. I didn't particulary care for the idea that any group should be allowed to ban anyone from membership or attendance for any reason--I would have preferred to see all orgs made to accept all students--but the same speech code was at the heart of blocking the pro-war protests, so it seemed like a net good.</strike>
EDIT: sorry, it was about the "free-speech zones" the university had created for anyone not related to the anti-war protests. The particular area they chose was specifically out of site from the areas the anti-war rallies were held.
Later, in a slightly unrelated event, the university was successfully sued to remove the speech code from the code of conduct: https://www.thefire.org/cases/shippensburg-university-speech...
<strike>IIRC, that particular case was about religion-oriented groups on campus, where a Christian organization that didn't allow Muslim members was banned, even though there was also a Muslim organization that didn't allow Christians that was allowed to remain. I didn't particulary care for the idea that any group should be allowed to ban anyone from membership or attendance for any reason--I would have preferred to see all orgs made to accept all students--but the same speech code was at the heart of blocking the pro-war protests, so it seemed like a net good.</strike>
EDIT: sorry, it was about the "free-speech zones" the university had created for anyone not related to the anti-war protests. The particular area they chose was specifically out of site from the areas the anti-war rallies were held.
This article likens warnings to censoring. While "triggered" is commonly misused by a large number of people, it did stem from people who suffer PTSD like symptoms from traumatic events.
Giving such people a way to prepare themselves for these types of events, or recuse themselves if absolutely necessary, shouldn't be considered the same as censorship.
Giving such people a way to prepare themselves for these types of events, or recuse themselves if absolutely necessary, shouldn't be considered the same as censorship.
I think the underlying issue goes beyond a simple warning at the top of an assignment containing triggering material. It's more so about the implications of deeming something as "triggering" and how that classification can affect the rest of the course/materials/students beyond the offended party.
Also there are implications for the professors and the future courses they'd choose to offer in this situation. Maybe we won't have courses on the Greek classics in a few years because the risk vs reward for the people electing to teach those courses.
Also there are implications for the professors and the future courses they'd choose to offer in this situation. Maybe we won't have courses on the Greek classics in a few years because the risk vs reward for the people electing to teach those courses.
These both strike me as extraordinarily unlikely outcomes.
Yeah, I find the backlash really confusing - I've genuinely never encountered anyone using content warnings as a suggestion that the text in question should be censored.
Please don't generalize one dude's experience / article to all of America's universities. Plenty of professors across plenty of fields enjoy "triggering" student's visceral reactions to shocking events, new ideas, and homeworkian brutality. And the majority of students walk away from these experience with having opened their eyes and learned something without having to feel she was triggered and made to feel unsafe reading a 1000+ year old book in a classroom with plenty of adult supervision....
As for us, folks who are not in an American college for whatever reason (graduated, not in the US, underaged, etc.), judging the American university from sensationalist articles from the media to be a hotbed for either overarching protectionism or flagrant rapey patriarchy is just jumping to conclusions on our part.
As for us, folks who are not in an American college for whatever reason (graduated, not in the US, underaged, etc.), judging the American university from sensationalist articles from the media to be a hotbed for either overarching protectionism or flagrant rapey patriarchy is just jumping to conclusions on our part.
>> 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.
> Is it really like this in American universities these days? I'm stunned.
Please remain stunned. Yes, there are actually teachers out there who care about how their students/audiences feel and experience as a result of choices made in the syllabus.
Please remain stunned for confusing, intentionally, a trigger warning with book burning.
> Is it really like this in American universities these days? I'm stunned.
Please remain stunned. Yes, there are actually teachers out there who care about how their students/audiences feel and experience as a result of choices made in the syllabus.
Please remain stunned for confusing, intentionally, a trigger warning with book burning.
I was just listening to NPR this morning, and the announcer said they were going to talk about last night's Mad Men finale- and if I was concerned about spoilers, I should turn the radio off.
That's the level of concern that our society places on potentially ruining the ending of a TV show. For some reason when we apply the same principle to being respectful to people who don't want to relive a trauma they themselves lived, it's ridiculous.
That's the level of concern that our society places on potentially ruining the ending of a TV show. For some reason when we apply the same principle to being respectful to people who don't want to relive a trauma they themselves lived, it's ridiculous.
>For some reason when we apply the same principle to being respectful to people who don't want to relive a trauma they themselves lived, it's ridiculous.
Part of the ridiculousness is that although it's relatively easy to know when you would be spoiling a show, anything can be a trigger. So it isn't even possible to supply a meaningfully comprehensive "trigger warning".
Part of the ridiculousness is that although it's relatively easy to know when you would be spoiling a show, anything can be a trigger. So it isn't even possible to supply a meaningfully comprehensive "trigger warning".
Below you will find a list (in no particular order) of common trigger warnings. If discussing one of these things, it is considered common courtesy to put a simple “Trigger Warning: [Subject]” before a post.
Please note: This is a work in progress. If there are any triggers you feel are missing, please feel free to drop us an ask.
Please note: This is a work in progress. If there are any triggers you feel are missing, please feel free to drop us an ask.
Swearing
Rape
Abuse (physical, mental, emotional, verbal, sexual)
Child abuse/pedophilia
Self-injurious behavior (self-harm, eating disorders, etc.)
Talk of drug use (legal, illegal or psychiatric)
Suicide
Descriptions/pictures of medical procedures (even if they don’t contain blood or gore)
Descriptions/pictures of violence or warfare (including instruments of violence, such as knives or guns)
Corpses, skulls or skeletons
Needles
Discussions of -isms, shaming, or hatred of any kind (racism, classism, hatred of cultures/ethnicities that differ from your own, sexism, hatred of sexualities or genders that differ from your own, anti-multiple, non-vanilla shaming, sex positive shaming, fat shaming/body image shaming, neuroatypical shaming)
Any time slurs are used (this includes words like “stupid” or “dumb”, which are still widely considered to be socially acceptable)
Trans* degendering, or anti-trans* views of bodies
Dismissal of lived oppressions, marginalization, illness or differences
Kidnapping (forceful deprivation of/disregard for personal autonomy)
Discussions of sex (even consensual)
Death or dying
Spiders
Insects
Snakes
Vomit
Pregnancy/childbirth
Blood
Serious injury
Trypophobia (Link is safe.)
Scarification
Nazi paraphernalia
Slimy things
Anything that might inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD
Trigger Warning: The following post may contain something which might trigger some reaction from someone. Descriptions of possible triggers can be triggering, and are thus omitted here.
The more you need to warn against the less useful the warning becomes. Eventually you either have a massive list like a drug side-effect label that nobody reads or you have an extremely generic warning like the one above.
This post may contain swearing (depending on your choice of swear words) or inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD. Belgium.
The more you need to warn against the less useful the warning becomes. Eventually you either have a massive list like a drug side-effect label that nobody reads or you have an extremely generic warning like the one above.
This post may contain swearing (depending on your choice of swear words) or inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD. Belgium.
This is a slippery slope argument, and in this case it doesn't make any sense. We can't know every trigger, but it'd be pretty surprising if a description of rape wasn't one.
Your argument has the same flaws as the argument that we should give up on trying to understand the programs we write because "Rice's theorem".
Your argument has the same flaws as the argument that we should give up on trying to understand the programs we write because "Rice's theorem".
> Part of the ridiculousness is that although it's relatively easy to know when you would be spoiling a show, anything can be a trigger.
Except that we know the most common triggers are depictions of rape; depictions of child abuse; and depictions of war.
Except that we know the most common triggers are depictions of rape; depictions of child abuse; and depictions of war.
I've heard this "spoiler" point before, but it fails to understand why people don't like trigger warnings in the first place.
Triggers are an excuse to avoid hearing, thinking or discussing uncomfortable ideas. Spoiler warnings are for people who want to savor the experience on their own time. Two preemptive warnings to bail out of a conversation, but for almost opposite reasons.
In this post Enlightenment era, the sharing and discussion of ideas is sacrosanct. Giving someone an Out rubs people the wrong way by violating such a fundamental principle. Discomfort is not an excuse.
So it's exactly the frivolity of TV that made society embrace the spoiler warning. But not without some "this is really stupid" consternation. Given some "everything else being equal" reasoning, and the fact anyone taking the warning will watch the show and be ready to talk about later, spoiler warnings became a thing.
Triggers are an excuse to avoid hearing, thinking or discussing uncomfortable ideas. Spoiler warnings are for people who want to savor the experience on their own time. Two preemptive warnings to bail out of a conversation, but for almost opposite reasons.
In this post Enlightenment era, the sharing and discussion of ideas is sacrosanct. Giving someone an Out rubs people the wrong way by violating such a fundamental principle. Discomfort is not an excuse.
So it's exactly the frivolity of TV that made society embrace the spoiler warning. But not without some "this is really stupid" consternation. Given some "everything else being equal" reasoning, and the fact anyone taking the warning will watch the show and be ready to talk about later, spoiler warnings became a thing.
It's easy to define a spoiler: Any description of an event in a fictional work which would be difficult to predict and that has significant consequences.
It's very difficult to determine what trigger warnings should be used in a general case. Should pictures of dogs (especially German shepherds) carry a trigger warning because dogs are often used as attack animals by police and militaries, and can cause traumatic experiences in someone attacked by them? What about birds? I have an acquaintance who is deathly afraid of birds. How about warnings for people with ideophobia (the fear of ideas)? Or all the other things on http://phobialist.com/ or any other such list. Who decides what list of triggers is legitimate?
It's very difficult to determine what trigger warnings should be used in a general case. Should pictures of dogs (especially German shepherds) carry a trigger warning because dogs are often used as attack animals by police and militaries, and can cause traumatic experiences in someone attacked by them? What about birds? I have an acquaintance who is deathly afraid of birds. How about warnings for people with ideophobia (the fear of ideas)? Or all the other things on http://phobialist.com/ or any other such list. Who decides what list of triggers is legitimate?
[deleted]
I thinks everybody in the comments are forgetting one qute from the article:
>> I am sorry about the student who couldn’t abide the mention of sexual assault, but she should be getting help for her triggering from a therapist, not from a professor.
Shouldn't the students with a trauma be going through therapy to overcome that trauma? I don't mean shoving depictions of rape onto them, unanounced, but "trigger warnings" are just ways to go around the real problem: That person hasn't overcome his trauma, and he is struggling with it in it's daily life.
>> I am sorry about the student who couldn’t abide the mention of sexual assault, but she should be getting help for her triggering from a therapist, not from a professor.
Shouldn't the students with a trauma be going through therapy to overcome that trauma? I don't mean shoving depictions of rape onto them, unanounced, but "trigger warnings" are just ways to go around the real problem: That person hasn't overcome his trauma, and he is struggling with it in it's daily life.
My understanding of "trigger warnings" is that they are an acknowledgement that many people have trauma they haven't overcome, and college students certainly among them – these are young people, overcoming the trauma of sexual assault, for instance, is the work of years or decades, if it's even a thing. These are classes full of diverse people and experiences, and if they bring their full selves with them into the class then they'll be bringing some trauma. Some points of literature will be deeply meaningful to some in ways it is not to others. If the students don't bring their full selves, then they can just approach it academically, abstractly; not an uncommon result, but it's not a very ambitious outcome for an education.
That said, I'm not quite sure what the trigger warnings are supposed to accomplish. That is, I see the problem trigger warnings are trying to address – but I don't see how those warnings themselves accomplish much. Though they could just be the preferred strawman when arguing against a whole category of sensitivity advocacy.
That said, I'm not quite sure what the trigger warnings are supposed to accomplish. That is, I see the problem trigger warnings are trying to address – but I don't see how those warnings themselves accomplish much. Though they could just be the preferred strawman when arguing against a whole category of sensitivity advocacy.
Warning - comments like this will make you feel itchy. Try not to scratch.
I can't see how calling a content warning (not a bad thing) a "trigger warning" is helpful.
The nocebo effect is real. If an authority figure is implying that something is likely to be triggering, couldn't it cause people to be more likely to consider such material to be triggering? And repeated exposure to this might cause a serious condition to develop?
Let's not forget, there's virtually no research (at all) into "trigger warnings" by actual psychologists. And the research that does exist is pretty mixed (even leaning against using them).
I can't see how calling a content warning (not a bad thing) a "trigger warning" is helpful.
The nocebo effect is real. If an authority figure is implying that something is likely to be triggering, couldn't it cause people to be more likely to consider such material to be triggering? And repeated exposure to this might cause a serious condition to develop?
Let's not forget, there's virtually no research (at all) into "trigger warnings" by actual psychologists. And the research that does exist is pretty mixed (even leaning against using them).
> there's virtually no research (at all) into "trigger warnings" by actual psychologists
I assumed that these "warnings" were to alert a reader who may be "triggered" to stop reading, lest they encounter their "trigger".
Is there some other intention?
I assumed that these "warnings" were to alert a reader who may be "triggered" to stop reading, lest they encounter their "trigger".
Is there some other intention?
In theory they're to allow people to make informed choices and to put in place safety mechanisms that allow them to access the material in a safe way.
Very few people need that level of support, but since all that's being asked for is a simple (for example) "Watch out, this contains graphic scenes of attempted suicide" it's a reasonable request.
The argument comes from two things:
1) People are policing content and preventing interesting content from being taught. Thus, anything with a trigger warning is seen as being not suitable for this campus and you're a monster for suggesting it should be taught here. That's obviously sub-optimal.
2) Avoiding something that causes you mental distress may not be the best way of overcoming that distress. I'm not recommending people just plough through distressing material (because that's unlikely to help them either) but having a warning and a bit of time to tackle the content in safe way is probably useful.
Very few people need that level of support, but since all that's being asked for is a simple (for example) "Watch out, this contains graphic scenes of attempted suicide" it's a reasonable request.
The argument comes from two things:
1) People are policing content and preventing interesting content from being taught. Thus, anything with a trigger warning is seen as being not suitable for this campus and you're a monster for suggesting it should be taught here. That's obviously sub-optimal.
2) Avoiding something that causes you mental distress may not be the best way of overcoming that distress. I'm not recommending people just plough through distressing material (because that's unlikely to help them either) but having a warning and a bit of time to tackle the content in safe way is probably useful.
I'm concerned about this phrasing "didn't feel safe". You see it all the time as the justification for wanting "trigger" warnings.
Safe from what? What is the fear here? There is feeling uncomfortable, there is trauma from being reminded of past events, I get all of that. But not feeling safe means you feel there is an imminent, present danger. What is that imminent danger?
The only thing that comes to mind is some fear that the classroom, now having read the scenes of rape and sexual assault together, would turn into a rape gang. I can't, for the life of me, imagine a scenario where the student would rationally feel unsafe in the classroom.
Safe from what? What is the fear here? There is feeling uncomfortable, there is trauma from being reminded of past events, I get all of that. But not feeling safe means you feel there is an imminent, present danger. What is that imminent danger?
The only thing that comes to mind is some fear that the classroom, now having read the scenes of rape and sexual assault together, would turn into a rape gang. I can't, for the life of me, imagine a scenario where the student would rationally feel unsafe in the classroom.
> Safe from what?
From unintentionally re-living a traumatic experience (a rape). PTSD is real and often effects rape victims. Warnings can help victims mentally prepare themselves before difficult discussions. E.g. some soldiers with PTSD can sometimes uncomfortably sit through fireworks displays, but will have a panic attack if a firework goes of unexpectedly.
> ...would turn into a rape gang. I can't, for the life of me, imagine a scenario where the student would rationally feel unsafe in the classroom.
Asking why someone with PTSD can't just not feel unsafe is like asking why someone with autism can't just act normal.
From unintentionally re-living a traumatic experience (a rape). PTSD is real and often effects rape victims. Warnings can help victims mentally prepare themselves before difficult discussions. E.g. some soldiers with PTSD can sometimes uncomfortably sit through fireworks displays, but will have a panic attack if a firework goes of unexpectedly.
> ...would turn into a rape gang. I can't, for the life of me, imagine a scenario where the student would rationally feel unsafe in the classroom.
Asking why someone with PTSD can't just not feel unsafe is like asking why someone with autism can't just act normal.
To be clear, I understand that "it's all in your head" is not a valid response to phobias, depression, PTSD, etc. I do know that they are real problems for people and they don't just go away when someone says "walk it off".
But if there is no real danger, in the physical world, that defines it as an irrational fear, a phobia. Are we going to put trigger warnings on anything involving dogs, water, heights, spiders, narrow spaces, open spaces, or clowns? Which phobias are the suffer's responsibility and which are societies?
We might, and should, choose to be considerate. But it should be in the realm of social norms and manners, not codified regulation and law.
But if there is no real danger, in the physical world, that defines it as an irrational fear, a phobia. Are we going to put trigger warnings on anything involving dogs, water, heights, spiders, narrow spaces, open spaces, or clowns? Which phobias are the suffer's responsibility and which are societies?
We might, and should, choose to be considerate. But it should be in the realm of social norms and manners, not codified regulation and law.
See my post in this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9565576
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9565576
On the one hand it increased sensitivity to people who have dealt with trauma is admirable. On the other hand college should be a place to grapple with all kinds of ideas and to learn how to deal with vastly different experiences and points of view (including those that are offensive).
Once we add a trigger warning, where do we go from there? It is one thing if the expectation is for the student to use the warning as an opportunity to brace themselves for the challenge and, if necessary, seek help in dealing with the material.
However, I think the fear of many who are skeptical of the warnings is that they would result in students being excused entirely from having to deal with any material that might trigger them. Over time this would actually diminish students' ability to deal with challenging material, which is the opposite of what students should be learning.
This already happens in lower-stakes contexts. For example, a friend of mine is a religious studies professor: he has religious students ask to be excused from learning about secular approaches, like the biblical documentary hypothesis, on the basis that it challenges their beliefs. His response, as it should be, is that being able to understand and apply something they don't believe in or even vehemently disagree with is part of what you are supposed to be learning.
Once we add a trigger warning, where do we go from there? It is one thing if the expectation is for the student to use the warning as an opportunity to brace themselves for the challenge and, if necessary, seek help in dealing with the material.
However, I think the fear of many who are skeptical of the warnings is that they would result in students being excused entirely from having to deal with any material that might trigger them. Over time this would actually diminish students' ability to deal with challenging material, which is the opposite of what students should be learning.
This already happens in lower-stakes contexts. For example, a friend of mine is a religious studies professor: he has religious students ask to be excused from learning about secular approaches, like the biblical documentary hypothesis, on the basis that it challenges their beliefs. His response, as it should be, is that being able to understand and apply something they don't believe in or even vehemently disagree with is part of what you are supposed to be learning.
I believe the "lower-stakes contexts" you mention are qualitatively different.
Rape, Violence, or War are related to traumatic experiences. You might not find it so controversial if it they were visceral descriptions of Arachnophobia, Acrophobia or fear of drowning.
Religion or Politics, on the other hand, are related to controversial ideas.
Discussing controversial ideas should never be shielded: at best it leads to enlightenment and new points of view and opinions; at worse it is a waste of time (perhaps because some ideas are poorly fundamented). So for example, the visceral passages in those books might have been safely replaced by an explanation of the results (for the students who find it traumatic only) without much loss. Of course, ideally one would separate himself from the situation and not be affected, instead focusing on understanding objectively the social and historical context for the book, or maybe the prose, and so on; but it's completely understandable some may find those experiences too traumatic.
Rape, Violence, or War are related to traumatic experiences. You might not find it so controversial if it they were visceral descriptions of Arachnophobia, Acrophobia or fear of drowning.
Religion or Politics, on the other hand, are related to controversial ideas.
Discussing controversial ideas should never be shielded: at best it leads to enlightenment and new points of view and opinions; at worse it is a waste of time (perhaps because some ideas are poorly fundamented). So for example, the visceral passages in those books might have been safely replaced by an explanation of the results (for the students who find it traumatic only) without much loss. Of course, ideally one would separate himself from the situation and not be affected, instead focusing on understanding objectively the social and historical context for the book, or maybe the prose, and so on; but it's completely understandable some may find those experiences too traumatic.
Yes, that is indeed a distinction that can be made, but in practice I don't think it is - which is my fear.
Quoting from the article: "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."
For this student, it seems like they aren't able to disengage from the triggering sections or treat the discussion as an academic exercise. Even with the replacement of visceral passages (an accommodation I think is quite reasonable for those students who need it), it seems like this student would still not be able to see anything but the rape.
This is certainly understandable, but being able to break something and examine it with different lenses is a key part of studying texts and an important life skill.
Quoting from the article: "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."
For this student, it seems like they aren't able to disengage from the triggering sections or treat the discussion as an academic exercise. Even with the replacement of visceral passages (an accommodation I think is quite reasonable for those students who need it), it seems like this student would still not be able to see anything but the rape.
This is certainly understandable, but being able to break something and examine it with different lenses is a key part of studying texts and an important life skill.
I recently listened to this debate: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/03/390254974/debate-do-liberals-s... "Do Liberals Stifle Intellectual Diversity On The College Campus?"
I found the arguments quite compelling that "liberal censorship" was largely a figment of imagination. (In large part because the people who are supposedly censoring have no coercive power and are themselves engaging in a argument they have a right to make.)
The audience did not agree with me, so obviously it wasn't a slam dunk.
I found the arguments quite compelling that "liberal censorship" was largely a figment of imagination. (In large part because the people who are supposedly censoring have no coercive power and are themselves engaging in a argument they have a right to make.)
The audience did not agree with me, so obviously it wasn't a slam dunk.
This is a sad example of a lack of empathy leading to a bad argument.
You can't acknowledge that a course should have a warning about sexual assault themes and then say anyone affected needs therapy. If you have to give a warning, you are implicitly stating you agree that some people may be harmed. And the potential for real harm - not to mention the more basic problem of not being able to complete the course work - should be dealt with appropriately, not dismissed as unnecessary or stifling.
There is a balance that can be struck between caring about people and not baby-proofing the world. But to say people should just suck it up when they're hurt and take it as a character-building exercise is just an attempt to ignore the person's pain.
The best literature doesn't need triggering shock tactics. Certainly they can be a useful tool, but it's the writing that makes it useful, not the subject matter.
Finally, consider what actually happens to a person when they get triggered. Quick shallow breathing, the heart races, pupils dilate, adrenaline spikes, and a feeling of imminent death freezes you in place until your brain can cope with what's going on. Until you've experienced this for yourself, you should really reconsider your opinions about how you'd like to be treated in such situations, or whether you should be given a warning. You may not be able to fully comprehend the gravity of how this can affect an individual's life.
You can't acknowledge that a course should have a warning about sexual assault themes and then say anyone affected needs therapy. If you have to give a warning, you are implicitly stating you agree that some people may be harmed. And the potential for real harm - not to mention the more basic problem of not being able to complete the course work - should be dealt with appropriately, not dismissed as unnecessary or stifling.
There is a balance that can be struck between caring about people and not baby-proofing the world. But to say people should just suck it up when they're hurt and take it as a character-building exercise is just an attempt to ignore the person's pain.
The best literature doesn't need triggering shock tactics. Certainly they can be a useful tool, but it's the writing that makes it useful, not the subject matter.
Finally, consider what actually happens to a person when they get triggered. Quick shallow breathing, the heart races, pupils dilate, adrenaline spikes, and a feeling of imminent death freezes you in place until your brain can cope with what's going on. Until you've experienced this for yourself, you should really reconsider your opinions about how you'd like to be treated in such situations, or whether you should be given a warning. You may not be able to fully comprehend the gravity of how this can affect an individual's life.
Trigger warnings likely do more harm than good. Avoiding reminders of trauma actually reinforces PTSD. Trigger warnings help make and keep being a victim of trauma a central part of the survivor's identity.
Here is a comment from an earlier discussion with cites to a couple of article covering the harmful to victims aspects of trigger warnings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801995
Here is a comment from an earlier discussion with cites to a couple of article covering the harmful to victims aspects of trigger warnings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801995
Slamming something that causes no one inconvenience but can save some people a lot of pain is so weird.
There seems to be quite a few levels of problems here.
1. Weak people needing warnings of things they feel 'trigger' them.
Triggers exist. They are an artifact of PTSD, and are a very real phenomenon. However, just like "gluten sensitivity" and newer fads, 'trigger warnings' are the artifacts from new-age feminists and SJW (social justice warrior) types. They have no basis in medical fact, nor are many of them being actively treated for PTSD. It just happens to be the current cudgel one can smack others against the head to do their bidding.
2. Professor who dismisses said "feels".
Professors, and schools, are expected to be bastions of safety and security when exploring oneself. Or at least, that's the current understanding of one of the aspects of a university. Anyone who goes against that idea, including telling weak people they are wrong, is "evil". And the worst one can do is dismiss someone's "feels", mainly towards women, and some men.
The 'Other' way to read this is :
Patriarchy Professor tells PTSD feminist sufferer that Your Rape is Invalid
One must understand the other side, the view from the new wave feminists (16-30). It's an ugly, bleak, mild world similar to that of the fainting women of Victorian times. And it's one I have no respect for.
3. Degree that requires class that may or not pertain to said curriculum.
This view will be fought here at HN. This challenge is the fight over curriculum and what University degree is for. Is it for the well-roundedness of your education, or is it to be employable in a field that makes you more money?
If it is to be a better citizen, then absolutely the Classics should be included in every education. It is the foundation of the ancient Greeks and Romans that our society is based upon. Where our Senate came from is directly from the Roman Senate.
But, what if you attended college to obtain a better job and easier life? Then surely, Classics mean little. They do nothing to further your goals, nor do they put direct skills in your pocket for the next position you take. They might have auxiliary skills taught via Socratic dialectic, but most of these classes are for naught.
With a final nail in its coffin, school costs raising much higher than inflation, one must be money conscious. Those costs translate into less classes in your chosen major, and more time in school. And that leads to lost opportunity and extra uncancellable debt.
4. University for harboring political correctness to the extremes.
With the plight of the universities and un- and underreported rapes and assaults, they are showing to be astute to the ills of college life. With this, universities are convening kangaroo courts to find "guilty" all sorts of college crimes, like rape, even when there is no founding. This whole atmosphere feeds upon itself even more with higher and higher political correctness. And this is where the professor, even though believes he is justified in ignoring such 'trigger claims', may still be punished by loss of tenure or not given grants.
Does the Uni require a modicum of protection for its students, staff, and faculty? Of course! But one does not need to shield 'weak minds' from the hardness of life, and harsh words and powerful critiques. Instead, the idea of shielding assault has migrated downward to 'he said a bad word', ala kindergarten.
1. Weak people needing warnings of things they feel 'trigger' them.
Triggers exist. They are an artifact of PTSD, and are a very real phenomenon. However, just like "gluten sensitivity" and newer fads, 'trigger warnings' are the artifacts from new-age feminists and SJW (social justice warrior) types. They have no basis in medical fact, nor are many of them being actively treated for PTSD. It just happens to be the current cudgel one can smack others against the head to do their bidding.
2. Professor who dismisses said "feels".
Professors, and schools, are expected to be bastions of safety and security when exploring oneself. Or at least, that's the current understanding of one of the aspects of a university. Anyone who goes against that idea, including telling weak people they are wrong, is "evil". And the worst one can do is dismiss someone's "feels", mainly towards women, and some men.
The 'Other' way to read this is :
Patriarchy Professor tells PTSD feminist sufferer that Your Rape is Invalid
One must understand the other side, the view from the new wave feminists (16-30). It's an ugly, bleak, mild world similar to that of the fainting women of Victorian times. And it's one I have no respect for.
3. Degree that requires class that may or not pertain to said curriculum.
This view will be fought here at HN. This challenge is the fight over curriculum and what University degree is for. Is it for the well-roundedness of your education, or is it to be employable in a field that makes you more money?
If it is to be a better citizen, then absolutely the Classics should be included in every education. It is the foundation of the ancient Greeks and Romans that our society is based upon. Where our Senate came from is directly from the Roman Senate.
But, what if you attended college to obtain a better job and easier life? Then surely, Classics mean little. They do nothing to further your goals, nor do they put direct skills in your pocket for the next position you take. They might have auxiliary skills taught via Socratic dialectic, but most of these classes are for naught.
With a final nail in its coffin, school costs raising much higher than inflation, one must be money conscious. Those costs translate into less classes in your chosen major, and more time in school. And that leads to lost opportunity and extra uncancellable debt.
4. University for harboring political correctness to the extremes.
With the plight of the universities and un- and underreported rapes and assaults, they are showing to be astute to the ills of college life. With this, universities are convening kangaroo courts to find "guilty" all sorts of college crimes, like rape, even when there is no founding. This whole atmosphere feeds upon itself even more with higher and higher political correctness. And this is where the professor, even though believes he is justified in ignoring such 'trigger claims', may still be punished by loss of tenure or not given grants.
Does the Uni require a modicum of protection for its students, staff, and faculty? Of course! But one does not need to shield 'weak minds' from the hardness of life, and harsh words and powerful critiques. Instead, the idea of shielding assault has migrated downward to 'he said a bad word', ala kindergarten.
I agree that 'trigger warning' is a leftist slogan that's bandied out mainly by social justice warriors, but just because the people pushing it are annoying doesn't invalidate the idea in itself.
But what's with this classification of "weak" people?
"Anyone who goes against that idea, including telling weak people they are wrong, is "evil"."
"But one does not need to shield 'weak minds' from the hardness of life,"
Is this a paraphrase from the story, or are you actually claiming PTSD-afflicted people are 'weak', and that weak people should be ignored? Did I miss something?
But what's with this classification of "weak" people?
"Anyone who goes against that idea, including telling weak people they are wrong, is "evil"."
"But one does not need to shield 'weak minds' from the hardness of life,"
Is this a paraphrase from the story, or are you actually claiming PTSD-afflicted people are 'weak', and that weak people should be ignored? Did I miss something?
PTSD is a real medical disorder, as set forth by the DSM-5. Triggers are a well known phenomenon regarding PTSD. Usually, treatment revolves around either psychological sessions or drugs.
The feminists and some liberals who use "trigger warning" do not have PTSD, or are not working with professionals to assist with psychological disorders that have triggers (like PTSD).
Instead, they have latched on this language from a legitimate disorder and are coopting it for making their world tame and easy. This is what I am calling weak: people who want the world around them to bring the hardness to that of a kindergartner.
Life is not all happiness and candy. Life also has hardships, disagreements and harsh criticism, and death. And these "kids" are demanding to be treated like children.
"Your argument is triggering me, so shut the fuck up with your criticism."
"Clapping is triggering me, so everyone do jazz hands."
"Ancient Greek works trigger me, so I can't participate in class."
The feminists and some liberals who use "trigger warning" do not have PTSD, or are not working with professionals to assist with psychological disorders that have triggers (like PTSD).
Instead, they have latched on this language from a legitimate disorder and are coopting it for making their world tame and easy. This is what I am calling weak: people who want the world around them to bring the hardness to that of a kindergartner.
Life is not all happiness and candy. Life also has hardships, disagreements and harsh criticism, and death. And these "kids" are demanding to be treated like children.
"Your argument is triggering me, so shut the fuck up with your criticism."
"Clapping is triggering me, so everyone do jazz hands."
"Ancient Greek works trigger me, so I can't participate in class."
Oh, okay. I know what you're talking about now. I've dealt with the same people before: people who mis-use the phrase and apply it to things it doesn't actually apply to.
I had one person tell me "You can't call me a bitch! That's a violation of my consent, and is triggering." Which, it's not, and, it's not. As uncouth and sexist as it may be, the use of the word is so widespread (and has so many uses in our modern American culture) that it can't be legitimately claimed that this word will cause an anxiety attack. And I certainly don't need (or care for) someone's consent when I am intentionally trying to insult them. There's lots of other examples of these phrases being misused or misunderstood, of course.
But these aren't the people we should be concerned with, or even talking about. The people we should be talking about are the few but very real people who really do suffer attacks and re-live traumas when certain subjects unexpectedly come up in daily life.
Do you have the money for them to get therapy? I don't know if you realize this, but trauma therapy is usually not free, nor widely available in every community. There are some not-for-profits that provide free counseling to specific groups, but they don't exist everywhere, and not everyone qualifies. It's a bit like homeless shelters: they're there to help, but they sure as hell don't "fix" people from being homeless.
And more importantly, therapy does not cure PTSD. You can't just go to a doctor, talk about your feelings and suddenly you're trauma-free. Regardless of any therapy taking place, there is still a potential for harm, and so we still need to actually care about not harming people whenever it is reasonable to do so. Sometimes it will be reasonable, and other times not. I think it's important to recognize we need to have a multi-colored approach to issues that negatively affect people's lives, rather than a black & white approach.
I had one person tell me "You can't call me a bitch! That's a violation of my consent, and is triggering." Which, it's not, and, it's not. As uncouth and sexist as it may be, the use of the word is so widespread (and has so many uses in our modern American culture) that it can't be legitimately claimed that this word will cause an anxiety attack. And I certainly don't need (or care for) someone's consent when I am intentionally trying to insult them. There's lots of other examples of these phrases being misused or misunderstood, of course.
But these aren't the people we should be concerned with, or even talking about. The people we should be talking about are the few but very real people who really do suffer attacks and re-live traumas when certain subjects unexpectedly come up in daily life.
Do you have the money for them to get therapy? I don't know if you realize this, but trauma therapy is usually not free, nor widely available in every community. There are some not-for-profits that provide free counseling to specific groups, but they don't exist everywhere, and not everyone qualifies. It's a bit like homeless shelters: they're there to help, but they sure as hell don't "fix" people from being homeless.
And more importantly, therapy does not cure PTSD. You can't just go to a doctor, talk about your feelings and suddenly you're trauma-free. Regardless of any therapy taking place, there is still a potential for harm, and so we still need to actually care about not harming people whenever it is reasonable to do so. Sometimes it will be reasonable, and other times not. I think it's important to recognize we need to have a multi-colored approach to issues that negatively affect people's lives, rather than a black & white approach.
You have a good point about the costs of therapy and medication. This is just a bit of my anger seeping through.
My wife has a trigger. I'm one of 2 who know about it. She was beaten by an old boyfriend years ago with a certain type of belt.
I found out about this because I was taking off the belt from my pants, and she suddenly got quiet and started to shake. Then I realized that she couldn't speak. She would do things, like "Go over there" and likewise. She was expecting me to hit her with the belt, and was nigh catatonic from it.
She was also "raped", when she was with a guy who I am friends with (before I was dating her). He didn't know about that belt thing. He takes his pants off, and she's triggered. She didn't want to have sex with him, but did so because of the belt. Was this rape, considering she took off her clothes and made herself compliant? Well, not really. But it wasn't consensual.
That's what I'm used to when they say they are triggered.
My wife has a trigger. I'm one of 2 who know about it. She was beaten by an old boyfriend years ago with a certain type of belt.
I found out about this because I was taking off the belt from my pants, and she suddenly got quiet and started to shake. Then I realized that she couldn't speak. She would do things, like "Go over there" and likewise. She was expecting me to hit her with the belt, and was nigh catatonic from it.
She was also "raped", when she was with a guy who I am friends with (before I was dating her). He didn't know about that belt thing. He takes his pants off, and she's triggered. She didn't want to have sex with him, but did so because of the belt. Was this rape, considering she took off her clothes and made herself compliant? Well, not really. But it wasn't consensual.
That's what I'm used to when they say they are triggered.
I've known many people who are similarly afflicted. It's very unfortunate and scary and sad. It's also the thing that makes me super pissed off when certain people claim consent is dead simple, or that triggers are unimportant to consider.
My hope is that the more these stories are told, the more they will be investigated as serious topics to consider for their potential to negatively affect people's lives. We don't have a good system to deal with them now, but hopefully someday soon we can.
My hope is that the more these stories are told, the more they will be investigated as serious topics to consider for their potential to negatively affect people's lives. We don't have a good system to deal with them now, but hopefully someday soon we can.
[deleted]
Oh no! I am a poor professor who is being censored, because a few students want a 1 sentence warning about potentially traumatic experiences! Look at how my rights are being infringed on, because of a 1 sentence warning that I am being "Forced" to include!
Warnings are the same as censorship! Students should do exactly as I tell them to do, and have no right to ask me for any accommodations at all, no matter how trivially easy it is for me to include them.
Censorship! First Amendment rights! Big Brother!
/s
Warnings are the same as censorship! Students should do exactly as I tell them to do, and have no right to ask me for any accommodations at all, no matter how trivially easy it is for me to include them.
Censorship! First Amendment rights! Big Brother!
/s
It seemed to me that the problem is an out-of-touch professor rather than the material. Who discusses Persephone and glosses over the rape part? Especially in an introductory course? At least half the class was probably wondering what the hell was going on.
The author of the article seems to willfully miss the point. He pats himself on the back for reading Mein Kampf. What do you think would happen if a professor assigned Mein Kampf and then didn't talk about anti-Semitism? Would the author be telling the students to keep quiet?
The student in the example read the material. Despite being "triggered", the student came to class to discuss the material. She's probably thinking, "that was tough to get through; I hope we have a good discussion of the issues in the text." She gets to class and the professor spends most of the time talking about style rather than substance and then brushes her off after class. I'd be frustrated, too.
The author of the article seems to willfully miss the point. He pats himself on the back for reading Mein Kampf. What do you think would happen if a professor assigned Mein Kampf and then didn't talk about anti-Semitism? Would the author be telling the students to keep quiet?
The student in the example read the material. Despite being "triggered", the student came to class to discuss the material. She's probably thinking, "that was tough to get through; I hope we have a good discussion of the issues in the text." She gets to class and the professor spends most of the time talking about style rather than substance and then brushes her off after class. I'd be frustrated, too.
[deleted]
Ah. So of course we should expect "the best literature" to inflict psychological pain and violence upon us. Apparently, if trauma victims want not to be kicked in the bruised portion of their minds, that's Literally Stalin.
Silly me. Here I'd thought the best literature was for lifting us up out of the daily small traumas and dirt of our daily lives to show us something larger, finer, and more beautiful.
Silly me.
Silly me. Here I'd thought the best literature was for lifting us up out of the daily small traumas and dirt of our daily lives to show us something larger, finer, and more beautiful.
Silly me.
No, literature is obviously not your narrow definition, it can be whatever it wants (the set of good literature) and not anything else.
Wow, we're being really incredibly anal on this board today, aren't we?
"Good" literature is obviously a matter of taste, ie: rather than a matter of what internet commenters or the New Republic like to say.
"Good" literature is obviously a matter of taste, ie: rather than a matter of what internet commenters or the New Republic like to say.
Wow. That reads like something the Party in 1984 would use to justify its censorship:
"The Ministry of Truth works tirelessly to protect the oppressed from narratives of exclusion and oppression."
Is it really like this in American universities these days? I'm stunned.