|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 29, 2016 14:03:42 GMT -5
This whole business is so logically nonsensical, I can't see any reason to take any of it seriously.
How is anyone supposed to know what might "trigger" someone else? What "triggers" me will almost certainly not be the same thing that "triggers" you. Is there a such thing as a topic or concept or fact or image that is 100% certain not to "trigger" anyone? Certainly not, if the "triggering" furthers the universal purpose of conveying victimhood upon the "triggered".
The whole concept of "trigger warnings" is nothing but an act of cultural bullying...seeding the Earth with a field of unseen cultural landmines, poised to take out anyone who makes a misstep. The rules are, of course, infinitely fluid. The result is people of good will left afraid to freely express themselves, lest they inadvertently step on one of those mines.
My "trigger" is anything that impedes open and honest expression. Which is to say, my "trigger" is the concept of "trigger warnings". Which is to say, the whole nonsensical concept is self-refuting.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 29, 2016 14:20:54 GMT -5
I think the NYT article I linked to addresses the matters of which you speak reasonably well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Sept 29, 2016 15:27:41 GMT -5
. . . , If I were to take Trump to task it would be for his assertion that since he's bought influence with politicians and he knows how to game the system he's the one who's in the best position to stop it. Huh? Is there anyone who does not see Trump as a shameless self-dealer who will do anything in his power to get his way? Why then would anyone think that Trump would dismantle the machinery of his success? It would be counter to his self interests. And as far as I can tell those are the only interests he has. . . . , Lotta good things in that post. I coulda quoted teh whole thing. But this was one of the best. |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Sept 29, 2016 16:28:28 GMT -5
I agree with some of his reasoning (it should be his prerogative to warn as he sees fit), but using sudden intense nausea as a correlative example is, well, nauseating. I mean, c'mon man. But it made me think of my daughter's freshman year. One of her teachers used a low-brow trashy pornographic novel as a text. It was obvious she did it to be the provocateur and to throw the impressionable incoming freshmen (freshpersons?) off-kilter. My daughter challenged her and she made her motivations clear. So, was my daughter triggered? I don't know. She was offended to be sure. |
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Sept 29, 2016 16:35:40 GMT -5
Trigger was one cool horse. Roy loved that horse so much he stuffed him/her/it and kept the thing in his living room. He could climb up on old Trigger before bed every night and pretend he was out riding the plains again.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 29, 2016 16:43:34 GMT -5
Trauma has lasting effects. The memories and feelings are necessarily suppressed by survivors. Nausea, fainting, dread, grief, panic etc. can be and are elicited in some trauma survivors when they are unexpectedly triggered. A short forewarning to people that may want to brace themselves or absent themselves from triggers does not seem too onerous or unreasonable a thing to suggest.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 29, 2016 16:57:55 GMT -5
I think it's best to just learn that shit happens and the worst of it won't warn you before it does. Ask the folks on that train in New Jersey this morning. You may expect to be offended from time to time. Shit happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Sept 29, 2016 17:20:32 GMT -5
Trauma has lasting effects. The memories and feelings are necessarily suppressed by survivors. Nausea, fainting, dread, grief, panic etc. can be and are elicited in some trauma survivors when they are unexpectedly triggered. A short forewarning to people that may want to brace themselves or absent themselves from triggers does not seem too onerous or unreasonable a thing to suggest. So long it isn't mandated. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 29, 2016 17:42:07 GMT -5
Trauma has lasting effects. The memories and feelings are necessarily suppressed by survivors. Nausea, fainting, dread, grief, panic etc. can be and are elicited in some trauma survivors when they are unexpectedly triggered. A short forewarning to people that may want to brace themselves or absent themselves from triggers does not seem too onerous or unreasonable a thing to suggest. How is one to know when such a forewarning is required? Unless, of course, the traumatized person proactively tells you. How does that work? Do you walk around, knowing that you are carrying suppressed trauma and as such are vulnerable to spontaneous, extreme anxiety any time someone brings up the wrong topic, and therefore tell everyone you meet "Don't talk about X, because if you do I will be traumatized"? In that case, how is the traumatized person not in a state of perpetual "self-triggering"? None of this makes any sense, particularly in a university environment, where the whole point is to expose yourself to new ideas and (in theory at least) master them. How can you do that while living in fear? It's all hopelessly self-indulgent, functionally impossible to implement, and ultimately self-contradictory. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 29, 2016 18:06:59 GMT -5
I guess that's a bit more restrained than implying that the survivors of traumatic experiences that may be amongst the people in your lecture hall, towards whom one might with very little effort extend some consideration, are whiny little self-absorbed attention seeking bitches for perhaps appreciating the extension of such consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Sept 29, 2016 18:30:33 GMT -5
James, we might be talking about two different things. Mandating seems impossible and ridiculous. A teacher (or whoever) deciding to give a warning out of courtesy (like our NSFW) is nice. Mandating? No
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 29, 2016 18:37:43 GMT -5
Yeah Evan. Could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by lar on Sept 29, 2016 19:06:04 GMT -5
I have always thought of myself as a reasonable man. We live in a world in which things seem to have become "one size fits all" when reality suggests that one size is more likely to fit considerably less than all. How much effort does it take a university professor, or anyone else for that matter, to make a reasonable assumption with regard to a trigger warning? Not much I suspect. Even so one must not expect to be infallible. That's one of the first rules of being reasonable.
In my opinion choosing to make a trigger warning depends on a whole host of variables. Knowledge of one's audience is one. Another might be the context. A third might hinge on the idea that shock simply for the effect might not be such a good idea in the first place.
When I was a sophomore in college one of the English professors caused quite a commotion when he purposely dropped a Bible on the floor in front of his freshman English class. Bear in mind that this was in 1966 and I attended a small rural college in northeastern Nebraska. One of the innocent farm girls in the class freaked out. Neither she, nor her parents, nor the administration was mollified by the professor's explanation that what he was seeking to do was to show that what one gets out of the Bible is what's important and not the form of the Bible itself. I should point out that the professor's explanation came immediately after he dropped the Bible, a fact that was verified by the other students during the investigation into the incident. In the context of this discussion about trigger warnings I suggest that the professor's failure to issue a trigger warning was appropriate. The incident happened while the class was discussing the Bible and various schools of thought about what the Bible represents, including the idea of whether it should be taken literally or not. The professor's intent was not to shock. I thought then, and now, that given the context of his the situation, his failure to give a trigger warning was appropriate. He didn't espouse one theory or another. All he did was to present various ideas and invite discussion. Dropping the Bible, accompanied by his explanation, was intended to provoke more discussion. Given the times, and the fact that he was teaching in the Bible Belt, the professor might have considered that one or more of his students might be deeply offended by what he did. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that his explanation should have at least helped the distressed student to understand what was going on.
When I'm talking to combat veterans of the Vietnam war I don't engage in trigger warnings but I do self-censor myself. I never ask them about their combat experiences. Most won't talk about it anyway and the mention of the subject does distress quite a number of them. A few friends have voluntarily broached the subject with me. It's not difficult to understand why they won't talk about it. Is my self-censorship something that's going to erode the moral fiber of our country? No. It's considerate and a sign of my respect for people who have endured more than I could ever have imagined.
Be reasonable. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 29, 2016 19:15:14 GMT -5
I expect no special consideration of other people for my reaction to my past trauma. PTSD is a bitch but you better learn to live with it cause life is a bitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by lar on Sept 29, 2016 22:11:48 GMT -5
I expect no special consideration of other people for my reaction to my past trauma. PTSD is a bitch but you better learn to live with it cause life is a bitch. It's not about what you expect, Doug. It's about what you deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 29, 2016 22:30:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 30, 2016 6:38:34 GMT -5
I expect no special consideration of other people for my reaction to my past trauma. PTSD is a bitch but you better learn to live with it cause life is a bitch. It's not about what you expect, Doug. It's about what you deserve. I deserve wine and roses.  And one of those sports cars and a new guitar and ..... |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Sept 30, 2016 7:14:42 GMT -5
Yet another excerpt on the subject from Dreher's blog:
Brave New World-ish to the max.
Redolent of the purges of academia various Communist regimes have inflicted on their people.
|
|
phoenix
Certified Regular
Posts: 300
|
Post by phoenix on Sept 30, 2016 9:19:12 GMT -5
How is one to know when such a forewarning is required? Sometimes it's pretty straighforward. If you're showing a film in a college course that depicts a violent rape (for example, A Clockwork Orange), there's a chance you'll upset someone because of the statistical frequency of rape. So it's reasonable to provide a warning before showing the film. If you have African-American students in class and are showing a film that depicts lynching or other horrific, racially-motivated violence against a black person, it's reasonable to provide a warning. I've been doing that kind of thing in my classes since long before anyone heard of "trigger warnings." Interesting article. I think these kind of initiatives can be taken too far, and the article includes some good examples. (For instance, the "you guys" thing seems ridiculous.) But as long as certain kinds of speech aren't actually prohibited, I don't see much of a problem with it. People can do much worse than making an effort to be sensitive and considerate toward each other. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 30, 2016 12:15:35 GMT -5
If I am understanding this "trigger" business correctly, it sounds like we should be issuing a trigger warning prior to one of Doug's performances at IJam: "Warning, following songs may contain references to itty bitty titties or great big titties, or both."
Or maybe Howard as well: "Caution, following song references a dirt poor Appalachian farmer who strangles his wife and then hangs himself due to monopolistic commodity pricing by Cargil and Archer Daniels Midland. Plus, the farmer grows corn, a very, very nasty grain that should no longer be grown."
And for Russell: "Caution, this song is about a man who wants to get a woman on a slow boat to China for sexual purposes, a boat the woman is trapped on and can not get off of should she choose to redefine the relationship or, very likely, didn't understand the implications of getting on that slow boat in the first place. While the end result of this boat trip is unstated, there is the clear possibility that if she doesn't "put out" in the way the man desires, she may be left in China."
|
|
And one of those sports cars and a new guitar and ..... 
