First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Oxford law students given 'trigger warnings' before traumatic material
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/16
So I've had this whole discussion before, so I didn't really want to type out a whole new response just repeating what I've already said, so I dug up some old posts from the old Trigger Warnings thread. The whole thread has some pretty good discussion, but here is a summary of my points, with my full posts linked below (theres a lot of solid posts in that thread though):


First of all, anything and everything can be a trigger. A butterfly can be a trigger, cookies can be a trigger...anything that can bring you back to that moment, however, typically triggers are sensory and subconscious. Because of this, the banning of books containing rape scenes often misses the point, as something so conscious isn't usually a trigger in the same sense as something that is subconscious.

There is first of all the fact that in dealing with triggers, the path to overcoming it is to experience harmless exposure to the triggering stimuli in a safe environment (like a classroom). This helps the individual to disassociate the stimulus from the event. On the other hand, hiding from these stimuli simply re-enforces the trigger and cements it in. It also makes their trauma part of their identity.

If a person does have PTSD in a University environment, it is on them to learn how to deal with it in a way which allows them to live their life. The protective bubble that Universities try to extend isn't a courtesy that will likely be granted outside of those spaces, so if they don't learn to deal with these innocuous stimuli in healthy ways, they will be left floundering when placed in a situation that cares less about their feelings.

We are not moving forward and embracing offensive material through trigger warnings, we are casting this material aside due to its potential to offend or trigger. Material that goes a little too far to one individual that wasn't labelled is all the sudden the center of a scandal and the grounds for firing. I question whether slapping trigger warnings on everything will even do much to stem the tide.

Trigger warnings are just redundant and instead of denormalizing those events, they are drawing in highlighter all over them, implying how you should feel and what you should think and decreasing the focus on events elsewhere which may be just as important.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-918855/trigger-warnings?pg=5#51508383
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-918855/trigger-warnings?pg=5#51509057
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-918855/trigger-warnings?pg=6#51516087
Posted 5/12/16

goodman528 wrote:

I said it in my first reply post. Very very few of them will go into criminal law in their careers, almost none. But if they are interested in the subject a trigger warning doesn't exclude them from learning about it. All it says is if they don't want to learn about it, then they have the choice to not learn about it. So what is the problem?

You have some very fanciful ideas about what kind of men end up as leaders. Do you think George Bush knew how to check out at a supermarket? Do you think Lien Chan (Taiwan major party presidential candidate) ever ate a bento or a sandwich before? Do you think David Cameron ever cooked a meal before? People like Thatcher and Trump are the exception, not the rule. Most of the judges and senators and leaders don't live in the same world as you and me. But you know what, that is OK.

The only person who attempted to do what you just suggested was Chairman Mao. He had the great idea that future leaders should come from a representative cross section of the Chinese society, and intellectuals should not run away from the sufferings and difficulties of life. So when you see the news stories like Queen (UK) says Chinese officials were rude at meeting (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/queen-chinese-officials-very-rude-xi-jinping-state-visit), don't be surprised, because chairman Xi spent a good number of years of his youth working as a peasant farmer picking manure and growing crops and probably getting into fights over the meaning of communism, while the Queen had a very sheltered upbringing.


You seem to have the same problem as the person who quoted you previously... I never mentioned leaders or politicians, so not really sure what you're on about with that.

As for what I highlighted.. On what basis are the professors to take such claims of being "triggered" as legitimate claims? Does this mean that if I didn't want to learn Math, since my major was English anyway, I could have simply said numbers"triggered" me and I should have been exempted from suffering through the required material? Going back to your example of parking spaces reserved for the disabled, one must first submit the proper paperwork and proof in order to be issued a permit for that. So again, how would a professor know if a student is truly affected on a psychological level or if he/she is just lying to get out of having to read or study the required material? You simply can't say that if they don't want to learn something, they should be allowed to skip it. Why are they in school then? I'm actually a teacher and I have always had one rule: If you don't want to be in my class, the door is open. I'm not going to force students to be in my class if they don't want to be in it, but if they are in my class then I expect them to do the work. If they have concerns, I'm open to talk and help them, but I won't allow them to just choose what they will and will not do while in my class. That decision is mine. My classroom, my rules. (And I'm quite lucky to be working at a place that lets me do just that)

There's nothing wrong about giving warnings or disclaimers about certain materials, but that's all that they are: a head's up on what to expect, not a chance for students to decide that they want to skip that material or lesson.

That type of coddling is what breeds emotionally stunted adults who feel unsafe walking down the street just because a stranger said "good morning, beautiful" to them. It creates a victim mentality that enables people to file baseless harassment charges just because they felt threatened or were offended by someone. Higher education is supposed to prepare us for the real world, not shelter us and teach us how to become over-sensitive and entitled brats. The world and everyone in it does not owe it to any of us to be pleasant and accommodating. It's survival of fittest, remember?

19347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/16 , edited 5/12/16

Rinrinrinn wrote:


goodman528 wrote:

I don't know what post you read, but the one I wrote and you quoted (never edited) doesn't mention old people anywhere. All I'm saying is this is another case of people who are not affected by the issue shouting at people who are affected: "Get over it! I'm not affected so why should you be?" Which is an argument that makes no sense whatsoever. If you don't get offended by anything, then good for you, but some people do get offended or affected by some materials and they may want to have a trigger warning, why should you care whether or not such a trigger warning is provided for them? Do you also rage against disabled parking spaces because you can't accept the fact that some people are different to you?


Personally, I find that the issue is not about people being offended. Hell, be offended as much as you want. That's perfectly fine. Just don't expect or demand that the rest of the world cater to your every insecurity. The main issue is really about what kind of adults these kids are pretty much being trained to be. There is a big difference between reasonable accommodations such as disabled parking spaces for people who physically are unable walk the length of half a parking lot and these "trigger warnings" that are more about pandering to the over-sensitivity of the younger generation than about helping them. Besides, disabled parking spaces do not indulge or enable people to keep being disabled. Trigger warnings, especially the ones enforced in colleges and universities nowadays, teach kids to run away from things that scare, hurt, or offend them as opposed to helping them learn coping skills and giving them the strength to overcome anything. They enable the younger generation's view that the world and everyone else in it should change to fit their needs as opposed to the opposite which is the reality. Anyone who is that heavily traumatized or suffering from any serious psychological illness would either be in hospital or have a therapist who would advise them not to pursue anything that would obviously not be good for them. If they are sane enough and have enough sense to know what they want to pursue, then I'm pretty sure they should already have an idea of they are getting themselves into. I don't think the professor or the university owes them any kind of special treatment or exception just because they are emotionally stunted and unable to deal with certain subject matters.


Don't you think Mao was right in giving the younger generation the experience of the hardships in life? Rather than "teach kids to run away from things that scare, hurt, or offend them as opposed to helping them learn coping skills and giving them the strength to overcome anything.", Mao really gave the younger generation a lot of coping skills to deal with anything. These who survived anyway. You are saying not forcing students to learn things they have no interest in and may offend them in some way is sheltering them too much from the realities of life. Really? You want to force them to learn some real coping skills? Because it has been done before.

Can't you see that some people may not want to experience certain things, and they should have the choice of not experiencing these things. In movies and TV they are given this choice with movie classification warnings. In classes they can be given similar trigger warnings. Many people are not affected by the material, but some are.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 5/12/16
A joke.
66 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/12/16
In the Uk Oxford costs just as much as anyother university in the UK
around £9k a year so its not a rich kid school
it is a school with the brightest students from across the country
19347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/16

noReactionZ wrote:

In the Uk Oxford costs just as much as anyother university in the UK
around £9k a year so its not a rich kid school
it is a school with the brightest students from across the country



In the UK, 6.5% of children are educated in private schools (18% for A-levels only), and somewhere around 2%-10% are educated in grammar schools (state funded selective admission), so ~80% are educated in state funded schools.

In Oxford (and all of the top universities), roughly 20% are international students (mostly from common wealth countries, EU, and China), 30% from private schools, 15% from grammar schools, and 35% from other state funded schools. Then if you look further into which state schools those 35% came from, you will see that a significant number of them are from areas with very high house prices (£1million+).

That is why people think Oxford is for the rich. You are right, you don't need to be rich to pay the fees, but the people who do get in are not representative of the population of UK. And on a minor note, I think Oxford fees are slightly higher because they have to pay college fees (a few £k a year) as well as the £9k a year for tuition, I guess it can all be borrowed from student loans anyway, but having a £30k-£50k debt is not an insignificant barrier to entry if your family think of that kind of money as a significant amount.
22673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Online
Posted 5/12/16
Too much red text. I am triggered.

33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 5/12/16

goodman528 wrote:

In classes they can be given similar trigger warnings. Many people are not affected by the material, but some are.

Then they're in the wrong class.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/16 , edited 5/12/16
I understand trigger warnings when you're dealing with something traumatic that someone has experienced.

This however sounds more like it should just be "Viewer discretion is advised".

11750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 5/12/16
These are the same people that forced the military to implement stress cards for recruits. When you're getting screamed at in the fleet for screwing up, there are no baby cards you can pull besides the "un**** yourself" one.

This thread has me so triggered right now.
Posted 5/12/16
It's like saying to a group of medical students, leave the room if you're going to faint to blood, while doing a blood test.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 5/12/16

runec wrote:

I understand trigger warnings when you're dealing with something traumatic that someone has experienced.

Pretty much. Most of these are just college kids that want to be seen as being so repulsed by something that they get triggered by it despite not knowing how it affects people who have actually experienced it.

So much derp, not enough fucks.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 5/12/16

machinaprecis wrote:


maxgale wrote:


machinaprecis wrote:


maxgale wrote:

And people wonder why I loathe SJWs.


I'm not surprised you think that they're wrong, because on many counts they are, but I think that it's pretty silly and counterproductive that you loathe them.

It seems like this really upsets you, but to be fair, the topic was in the subject field, so maybe you shouldn't have read it if you were going to get so ... triggered?




If someone shits in your backyard, would you loathe them too?


You are getting upset about communication between people who have literally nothing to do with you.




And that is where you are literally wrong.
28602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 5/12/16

machinaprecis wrote:


Steelmonk wrote:


goodman528 wrote:

chill bro. most of them will go into corporate / financial law, and very few will ever complete any law suits. settlements, taxes and compliance for big corporations is where the money is.


every movie you have ever watched has a "trigger warning" about violence / sexual content / offensive language, as well as an age rating. are you upset over that as well?


this is typical blend of tabloid journalist sensationalizing a none-story to sell news and white men who have never experienced institutional discrimination crying about an issue that doesn't affect them.



Hmm... what do old white guys have to do with the general weakness of the general younger population? Does this non issue bother you that much? Discrimination? Hmm... Did you ever think that when you call out a bunch of old white guys that you are being discriminatory against the elderly? Is it ok for you to say such things because you are entitled to a double standard? Do two wrongs make a right? Sorry I just have to call you out. You started off reasonably well. Then you went all ageism. Do you hate your grand parents?



Nowhere in what you quoted did that poster make a disparaging comment about age. The only mention of age was in age ratings for movies, as in "you should probably be this old to view this movie". The post wasn't edited either.


The poster edited their statement from old white men to white men. The statement still stands. It's ok to cast stones at white men? Why is that?
28602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 5/12/16

goodman528 wrote:


Steelmonk wrote:


goodman528 wrote:

chill bro. most of them will go into corporate / financial law, and very few will ever complete any law suits. settlements, taxes and compliance for big corporations is where the money is.


every movie you have ever watched has a "trigger warning" about violence / sexual content / offensive language, as well as an age rating. are you upset over that as well?


this is typical blend of tabloid journalist sensationalizing a none-story to sell news and white men who have never experienced institutional discrimination crying about an issue that doesn't affect them.



Hmm... what do old white guys have to do with the general weakness of the general younger population? Does this non issue bother you that much? Discrimination? Hmm... Did you ever think that when you call out a bunch of old white guys that you are being discriminatory against the elderly? Is it ok for you to say such things because you are entitled to a double standard? Do two wrongs make a right? Sorry I just have to call you out. You started off reasonably well. Then you went all ageism. Do you hate your grand parents?


I don't know what post you read, but the one I wrote and you quoted (never edited) doesn't mention old people anywhere. All I'm saying is this is another case of people who are not affected by the issue shouting at people who are affected: "Get over it! I'm not affected so why should you be?" Which is an argument that makes no sense whatsoever. If you don't get offended by anything, then good for you, but some people do get offended or affected by some materials and they may want to have a trigger warning, why should you care whether or not such a trigger warning is provided for them? Do you also rage against disabled parking spaces because you can't accept the fact that some people are different to you?


The original poster edited his comment after my remark. What I said still stands. Is it ok to cast stones at white people? Why?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.