- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,244
- 246,688
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
A superb discussion about the new PC zeitgeist today, particularly on college campuses and among college age people
[Triggered] Safe Spaces And SJW Fragility
- Thread starter Wyote
- Start date
Using the feminist movement to legitimize their handicap of being sheltered in this internet age of people who avoid social contact IRL.
Although the movement might have started with good intentions and successfully brought many important issues to the fore, the theoretical structure was doomed to fail from the beginning because not only was it heavily subjective and rooted in an external locus of control, it also (unintentionally) created a kind of social currency that rewards the vulnerable while penalizing the stable and conventional.
I find that a lot of people have erroneously internalized this sense that, in order to get yourself heard, you cannot present yourself as part of the majority. You need to demonstrate some kind of fragility, some way society has done you wrong. Or, alternatively, stand up for a group that society has marginalized/ignored. And while in many cases this has benefited a number of legitimate groups and organizations and brought to light a lot of important issues, my opinion is that the psychology that is the basis for this kind of social analysis is fundamentally fucked up. If the only way you can get some attention, some power and a space on the podium, is by painting yourself as a victim, yeah, you're gonna see a lot of broken zoom lenses as people zero in on some hint of oppression or danger in order to win them some social significance. It's not a conscious thing, because honestly, I think that most people go in with the best of intentions and I can get behind a lot of what is being said. I just find that a lot of SJW attitudes and approaches to be troubling, as it's more self-dis-empowering rather than self-empowering.
I find that a lot of people have erroneously internalized this sense that, in order to get yourself heard, you cannot present yourself as part of the majority. You need to demonstrate some kind of fragility, some way society has done you wrong. Or, alternatively, stand up for a group that society has marginalized/ignored. And while in many cases this has benefited a number of legitimate groups and organizations and brought to light a lot of important issues, my opinion is that the psychology that is the basis for this kind of social analysis is fundamentally fucked up. If the only way you can get some attention, some power and a space on the podium, is by painting yourself as a victim, yeah, you're gonna see a lot of broken zoom lenses as people zero in on some hint of oppression or danger in order to win them some social significance. It's not a conscious thing, because honestly, I think that most people go in with the best of intentions and I can get behind a lot of what is being said. I just find that a lot of SJW attitudes and approaches to be troubling, as it's more self-dis-empowering rather than self-empowering.
Last edited:
I think that the speaker is a person who exists in an academic environment where this is happening and that is a genuine and meaningful concern. These environments need to be places where free debate takes place. I think partly the response of this person is not properly placing the debate within wider society. These debates are intensified in university environments because they are places where debates happen - this is part of the purpose of a university. And it's a reaction against wider society, where discrimination is reality.
Obviously, the problems in the academic environment are quite real. The lecturer should be able to show a video in which someone expresses disgust about same-sex sexual activities. I think this is an interesting starting point for discussion about homophobia. Could the speaker have handled this video differently by suggesting this as a point to begin discussion about what homophobia means?
In this talk, the speaker also expresses that he is disgusted by same-sex sexual activities. I would say to him, why on earth is that relevant to discussions of equality, and what place does it have in debate? It's not an appropriate remark, it has no scholarly relevance. Why does he mention that he finds gay sex disgusting?
In broader society, these problems aren't as significant. People are entirely entitled to question uses and outcomes of language just as they are in academia. Sometimes it seems that the words "Social Justice" have become just another way of dismissing legitimate concerns about discrimination in society without addressing those arguments. The speaker in this recording describes a class situation like "There are other people in the seminar who are thinking that what is being said by social justice advocates is crazy, but they can't say that because they're afraid of being accused of homohpobia." It is very strange that the speaker does not seem to recognise that saying "You are crazy" is no less devalidating than saying "You are homophobic". Both of these responses are ad hominem, and taken strictly in this sense, neither of them are capable of adequately addressing any of the arguments at hand.
Obviously, the problems in the academic environment are quite real. The lecturer should be able to show a video in which someone expresses disgust about same-sex sexual activities. I think this is an interesting starting point for discussion about homophobia. Could the speaker have handled this video differently by suggesting this as a point to begin discussion about what homophobia means?
In this talk, the speaker also expresses that he is disgusted by same-sex sexual activities. I would say to him, why on earth is that relevant to discussions of equality, and what place does it have in debate? It's not an appropriate remark, it has no scholarly relevance. Why does he mention that he finds gay sex disgusting?
In broader society, these problems aren't as significant. People are entirely entitled to question uses and outcomes of language just as they are in academia. Sometimes it seems that the words "Social Justice" have become just another way of dismissing legitimate concerns about discrimination in society without addressing those arguments. The speaker in this recording describes a class situation like "There are other people in the seminar who are thinking that what is being said by social justice advocates is crazy, but they can't say that because they're afraid of being accused of homohpobia." It is very strange that the speaker does not seem to recognise that saying "You are crazy" is no less devalidating than saying "You are homophobic". Both of these responses are ad hominem, and taken strictly in this sense, neither of them are capable of adequately addressing any of the arguments at hand.
What I'm trying to say basically, is that I think the approach of the speaker in this recording is way too much like "It's ridiculous that people are saying that we can't wear Indigenous American headdresses when we're white!" when it should be much more like "OK. Let's discuss this. What does cultural appropriation mean and why is it acceptable or why is it wrong?" But I would say that his attitude is shutting down discussion, when as an educator, he should be trying to find ways to open the discussions up, and represent the arguments properly. I don't see him as being any better than anyone else in this problem.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,244
- 246,688
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
@invisible I'm not sure how you inferred all of that, but mostly what I got out of it was a guy reacting to no longer being able to run a simple lecture without fear of losing months of his life due to simple misunderstandings or poor word choice in the moment. I don't know his background but he seems genuine in his concern and desire to teach fairly. The conversation at hand doesn't really lend itself to "opening a discussion on apropriation" but I feel like he'd be down for it, I could be wrong. Maybe he would have been ok if he said icky instead of disgusting? Or as you mentioned just left out the example entirely, but people learn through association and story, and not everyone is flawless in this regard, myself included. I think about two weeks ago I used the word "disgusting" pretty improperly and upset somebody. Thank god nobody tweeted about it, I might be living in a trash can as we speak. Reasonable mistakes should have reasonable punishment.
People's lives, careers, families are being ruined via social media because of "micro aggressions" and this is not ok.
People say and do stupid shit all the time. Everyone does it but when somebody gets "caught" (usually out of context) suddenly they are the worst scum and everyone else pats themselves on the back for being so great by not getting caught this time.
This guy is no saint but he does seem like a reasonable human, whereas students have become increasingly unreasonable.
People's lives, careers, families are being ruined via social media because of "micro aggressions" and this is not ok.
People say and do stupid shit all the time. Everyone does it but when somebody gets "caught" (usually out of context) suddenly they are the worst scum and everyone else pats themselves on the back for being so great by not getting caught this time.
This guy is no saint but he does seem like a reasonable human, whereas students have become increasingly unreasonable.
It's a pretty interesting and complex situation.
I think you've got a lot of points that I can't argue with! And also that I agree with.
There's a real change in the university world and there are a lot of problems with the way things are going. My friend who is an academic complains that because universities are increasingly being run as businesses, a big part of her role is to be a customer service representative who is required to satisfy students as customers. This doesn't seem like a rigorous academic process! I am very sympathetic to teachers in these situations where students don't seem to understand what the role of a teacher is, and what kind of role it is appropriate for them as a student to practice in the classroom. There is a real art to being a good student and it is definitely difficult to learn. I've had to work very hard to practice it. Maybe students could be given some counselling or instruction on what is appropriate behaviour because they don't seem to be getting it.
My problem wasn't any kind of linguistic issue with the particular word "disgusting", and I'm sure you don't think that I'm as trivial a person as that. It was more with the attitudes that he is expressing. He is comfortable with describing students as "crazy" for expressing certain opinions about stuff... he is happy to publicise that he is grossed out by sex between gay men... he thinks it is ridiculous that people would discuss cultural appropriation. I can completely understand his frustration, but I don't think these things are relevant to the discussion. And anyway, as you say, my reaction to him as a person is completely irrelevant.
I do question the integrity of some of his arguments for causation from correlation, and I think he's making some assumptions in there somewhere. I'm just expressing my uncertainty that the right way to go about resolving these problems is to develop a sort of archetype of a particular student or "social justice warrior" who commits these errors. I totally understand the problems that he mentions to do with the ineffectiveness of training teachers to refrain from causing offense. Maybe the right way to start to recognise and address these problems is to discuss this particular type of problem student, which is what is being done in this interview. I am definitely hesitant to see it as the final solution. I mean, I can't imagine a teacher pointing to a student and saying "Get out of the room if you're a social justice warrior, or face expulsion!" That doesn't sound like a solution to me and I don't think it's going to prevent students from wrecking lives on social media. There has to be some sort of happy medium or better way to go about it all.
Partly, I wonder about the generalisability of this kind of problem. You know, the general discussions that take place in society. Many times I have noticed people shutting down discussions, where the purpose of interaction is to discuss, with dismissals such as "Fucking Feminazis" or "Typical Social Justice Warriors", with the conviction that it is perhaps acceptable to publicise any discriminatory attitude whatsoever because free speech and because free speech so there. This type of response means nothing, is purposeless, advances conversation in no direction whatsoever. The problems of conducting a classroom are relevant to classrooms, I just wonder how relevant they are to other interactions.
I am just wanting to make it clear that I acknowledge that academic staff are being sacked over simply causing offense and that this is a very undesirable and even totally unacceptable outcome that needs to be addressed. I find the idea of "safe spaces" as they are being discussed in this context to be totally acceptable, but a university campus should not be a "safe space" of this particular kind, and everyone should know that it isn't the purpose of a campus or a classroom to be a "safe space".
Maybe I'm completely wrong and PC really is destroying public discourse. In all of this, the thing I'm most conflicted and confused about is whether the discussions about discrimination are intrinsically bound up with the triggering type problems. But I will definitely do more thinking about my attitudes about this.
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,499
- 89,430
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Here is a good article written by a (former) teacher about 'trigger warnings' and censorship in classes at universities/colleges:
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/28/i_w...nt_realize_just_how_impossible_this_would_be/
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/28/i_w...nt_realize_just_how_impossible_this_would_be/
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,499
- 89,430
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
It bothers me when people use opinion as fact when they are speaking in a position of authority, and there was a lot of this in this interview. There is a lot of hyperbole.
It's a myth that 'trigger warnings' are a liberal concern. It may be a generational concern, or it could be a concern for a micro group of liberals. Plenty of conservatives call for censorship, too. To me it seems like a side-effect of a coddled generation reaching adulthood. That is not to say every person in this generation is coddled, but it is a modern parenting trend and studies are already taking place that prove such self-centered attitudes erode our society and workplace. :/
There are a lot of liberals who embrace what other groups may label "offensive". Why? Because information and opinions that are "offensive" teach us about culture, history, and ourselves, and give us direction for our possible futures.
I've been part of some interesting discussions about trigger warnings at universities and in the arts. Almost everyone who has engaged in these discussions could be categorized as "liberal", but the dominant POV is that trigger warnings are ridiculous.
A common thread in these discussions is that people who have had negative experiences (such as abuse, rape, and as victims of bigotry) were able to work through issues and heal by facing these topics in subjects such as literature, art, film, and history. People who face the ugly side of humanity grow from it.
When you sign up for a class, hop onto a website, or see a film it is your responsibility to be informed about your decision. A class on Greek mythology is going to contain misogynist material and rape scenes. A class on the Holocaust is going to contain bigotry and graphic material. My friend was asked to give trigger warnings for his articles on a horror movie website. He laughed. No! If you make the choice to read about horror, prepare to be horrified.
That said, our society does need to move toward great tolerance and equality.
Personally, I don't think trigger warning at universities are the way to achieve it.
If something happens in a class that you really cannot handle, exit the class quietly, without disrupting the learning process for others.
Here is another article about students asking for trigger warning on Greek mythology: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...laim-greek-mythology-needs-a-trigger-warning/
Here is Haidt's (popular) article in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
It's a myth that 'trigger warnings' are a liberal concern. It may be a generational concern, or it could be a concern for a micro group of liberals. Plenty of conservatives call for censorship, too. To me it seems like a side-effect of a coddled generation reaching adulthood. That is not to say every person in this generation is coddled, but it is a modern parenting trend and studies are already taking place that prove such self-centered attitudes erode our society and workplace. :/
There are a lot of liberals who embrace what other groups may label "offensive". Why? Because information and opinions that are "offensive" teach us about culture, history, and ourselves, and give us direction for our possible futures.
I've been part of some interesting discussions about trigger warnings at universities and in the arts. Almost everyone who has engaged in these discussions could be categorized as "liberal", but the dominant POV is that trigger warnings are ridiculous.
A common thread in these discussions is that people who have had negative experiences (such as abuse, rape, and as victims of bigotry) were able to work through issues and heal by facing these topics in subjects such as literature, art, film, and history. People who face the ugly side of humanity grow from it.
When you sign up for a class, hop onto a website, or see a film it is your responsibility to be informed about your decision. A class on Greek mythology is going to contain misogynist material and rape scenes. A class on the Holocaust is going to contain bigotry and graphic material. My friend was asked to give trigger warnings for his articles on a horror movie website. He laughed. No! If you make the choice to read about horror, prepare to be horrified.
That said, our society does need to move toward great tolerance and equality.
Personally, I don't think trigger warning at universities are the way to achieve it.
If something happens in a class that you really cannot handle, exit the class quietly, without disrupting the learning process for others.
Here is another article about students asking for trigger warning on Greek mythology: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...laim-greek-mythology-needs-a-trigger-warning/
Here is Haidt's (popular) article in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
@Asa that was a great article, thanks, I get it a lot better now.
The way this word "trigger" is being used is pretty astonishing. It seems to have passed from a context of developing coping skills for survivors to a way of expressing intolerance or maybe it has developed as a sort of political act.
I found most interesting, the way that real world assault is minimalised by excessive attention to politics of representation. That's not to say that I think representation is unimportant... but it's clear that the context has been lost.
The way this word "trigger" is being used is pretty astonishing. It seems to have passed from a context of developing coping skills for survivors to a way of expressing intolerance or maybe it has developed as a sort of political act.
I found most interesting, the way that real world assault is minimalised by excessive attention to politics of representation. That's not to say that I think representation is unimportant... but it's clear that the context has been lost.
Last edited:
Re Washington Post article
I enjoyed the quote from Nolan, I think it is correct, these extreme responses (if genuine) require clinical treatment, not trigger warnings.
Although I thought it was pretty bizarre that a teacher would focus on the beauty of the language in a text taught in translation! to the exclusion of the subject matter, that isn't the point. The normal response is to move on from lousy teaching, not to burst into some emotional explosion.
I am feeling a great degree of astonishment that texts such as Achebe's are being considered to be damaging. I read one of his books for a class on postcolonial literatures. I thought the point of reading these wonderful books is that they show disturbing things. What else is the point of studying literature than to move towards greater understanding of humanity?
I was wanting to say that I think this has been in the works for a long time. There was a 2005 book I have seen called "Why are we reading Ovid's handbook on rape?" I think thinking about this question, it seems that these kinds of problems may have arisen from a very engaged and engaging educational process that truly interrogates texts and seeks their value... but has somehow gone awry. I think it would be excellent to be able to shift the focus back to engagement with the texts in this way... If it is "triggering" then why, and what is its value?
(I'm a big fan of Metamorphoses by the way, and the idea that it is a rape instruction guide is ludicrous to me.)
I enjoyed the quote from Nolan, I think it is correct, these extreme responses (if genuine) require clinical treatment, not trigger warnings.
Although I thought it was pretty bizarre that a teacher would focus on the beauty of the language in a text taught in translation! to the exclusion of the subject matter, that isn't the point. The normal response is to move on from lousy teaching, not to burst into some emotional explosion.
I am feeling a great degree of astonishment that texts such as Achebe's are being considered to be damaging. I read one of his books for a class on postcolonial literatures. I thought the point of reading these wonderful books is that they show disturbing things. What else is the point of studying literature than to move towards greater understanding of humanity?
I was wanting to say that I think this has been in the works for a long time. There was a 2005 book I have seen called "Why are we reading Ovid's handbook on rape?" I think thinking about this question, it seems that these kinds of problems may have arisen from a very engaged and engaging educational process that truly interrogates texts and seeks their value... but has somehow gone awry. I think it would be excellent to be able to shift the focus back to engagement with the texts in this way... If it is "triggering" then why, and what is its value?
(I'm a big fan of Metamorphoses by the way, and the idea that it is a rape instruction guide is ludicrous to me.)
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,499
- 89,430
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
I'm not sure what it says about me that I intentionally seek out the kinds of things people want to censor or put trigger warnings on these days, lol.
Regardless of any of my personal experiences, I want to know when there's unpleasant stuff going on in the world. I want the nitty gritty, the dark, dirty details. I want to know, I want to be educated. It's incredibly difficult for me, for instance, to see someone suffering, but I would still rather know about it. What are you doing to yourself if you throw a blanket over everything you don't want to see, just because it's rough? That seems like a life half-lived and half-seen, to me.
Regardless of any of my personal experiences, I want to know when there's unpleasant stuff going on in the world. I want the nitty gritty, the dark, dirty details. I want to know, I want to be educated. It's incredibly difficult for me, for instance, to see someone suffering, but I would still rather know about it. What are you doing to yourself if you throw a blanket over everything you don't want to see, just because it's rough? That seems like a life half-lived and half-seen, to me.
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,499
- 89,430
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Agree, agree, agree.
Agree.
And mythology, the tragedies and Classical literature are so important to me. I find it shallow to label Metamorphoses that way.
I think it would be excellent to be able to shift the focus back to engagement with the texts in this way... If it is "triggering" then why, and what is its value?
- Yes, absolutely. And what did it mean then? What does it mean to us as a society now?
I disagree with judging literature, art and historical figures from the past in the modern context, particularly when knowledge of that past is omitted.
I also believe it is important to recognize the talent and the story, even when acknowledging its socio-political shortcomings. There are plenty of 20th century authors who were geniuses at their craft, but who were blatantly misogynist. It doesn't mean they should not be appreciated as writers.
Someday we could all be labeled as this or that terrible thing in the eyes of future generations.
Last edited: