Chicago Declaration: No Safe Spaces, No Trigger Warnings

[KeepTalking]

The amazing evidence that this is actually a real problem is an anecdote from Jerry Seinfeld about his 14 yo daughter.

Refrain from trying to intimidate or harass others based on petty prejudices and you will have no problem with this minor phenomena called "political correctness".

It is incredibly easy to go to any university and avoid it totally.

Huh?

The letter was less likely prompted by the Seinfeld bit quoted in the article and more likely prompted by the trend of late for whiny - typically left-leaning - college brats to demand their universities shield them from everything they don't like and inflict censorship on anyone who doesn't 'think' like they do.

Trigger warnings do not "inflict censorship" on anyone, as the material is not removed from the classroom, or discussion, but rather they allow a person who may encounter stress as a result of the material or discussion to remove themselves from the setting. This is exactly what the UofC is doing in a very broad sense, they are issuing a statement allowing people who may be stressed by certain topics to remove themselves from the UofC setting.

 

[ronburgundy]

Which was almost entirely because of what he was saying and had nothing to do with:

Before the rally Kissinger said he entered the building under the guise of official business, and then propped open a locked door ...​

He propped open a locked door to facilitate a peaceful exercise of free speech.

It was not an exercise of speech. They engaged in an act of physical aggression, in this case trespassing to take someone else's private property hostage to prevent others free movement and ability to do their jobs until their demands were met.

Oh yeah, and the story is bullshit. He graduated and received zero punishment from the University, and their is zero evidence that he was ever in danger of not graduating.
He lied, broke basic rules of safety, and facilitated illegal trespass. The University by-laws would and should require that a disciplinary committee look into his clear and objective violation of reasonable rules that do nothing to quell actual free speech but rather limit dangerous actions that go well beyond speech.

 

[laughing dog]

He propped open a locked door to facilitate a peaceful exercise of free speech.

It was not an exercise of speech. They engaged in an act of physical aggression, in this case trespassing to take someone else's private property hostage to prevent others free movement and ability to do their jobs until their demands were met.

Your characterization is an over-exaggeration in my opinion. According to your characterization, any unwelcome protest on private property is an act of physical aggression.

Oh yeah, and the story is bullshit. He graduated and received zero punishment from the University, and their is zero evidence that he was ever in danger of not graduating....

If you read the actual words in the story, it explicitly reported his fears. Hence the story is literally not bullshit under the normal understanding of the term.

 

[ronburgundy]

Which was almost entirely because of what he was saying and had nothing to do with:

Before the rally Kissinger said he entered the building under the guise of official business, and then propped open a locked door ...​

You missed the point. Administrators create "safe spaces" for themselves all the time.

More grotesque abuse of language to create false equivalence. Private property designated for specific individuals to perform specific jobs (e.g. the administration offices at a Private University) is not in any meaningful way similar to "safe spaces" which are designed to allow nearly anyone to enter but to prohibit anyone from voicing particular types of viewpoints. Only the latter is about specifically restricting particular viewpoints on a topic.

Students often have to barge in and protest precisely because they're often so egregious about refusing to leave those spaces in order to actually discuss the University itself with the students. The fact that they were hostile to even this shows clear hypocrisy.

No, students don't "have to" commit trespassing crimes and use aggressive coercion to violate other people's rights of property and hold others hostage from doing their jobs. They do so because they are entitled narcissists that think everyone should not have to only hear but obey their every demand immediately.
U of C is a private organization. The students have no right to demand a particular level of input over basic policies. Whatever input the administration seeks from the students in their choice to allow them. IF the students want more input, they can ask without need for violating other people's rights (which most such physical protests do), and if they don't get what they want, they can choose to spend their college money elsewhere.

This protest is equivalent to Target customers breaking and entering into Target corporate headquarters and refusing to leave until they lower their prices.
That isn't free speech or anything positive that should be protected. It is a criminal attack on other people's rights.

 

[ronburgundy]

It was not an exercise of speech. They engaged in an act of physical aggression, in this case trespassing to take someone else's private property hostage to prevent others free movement and ability to do their jobs until their demands were met.

Your characterization is an over-exaggeration in my opinion. According to your characterization, any unwelcome protest on private property is an act of physical aggression.

No, that is exactly why these students did not simply hold an actual peaceful non-criminal protest on campus that U of C would have had no problem with. They illegally broke into the administrations offices and refused to leave because they knew it would obstruct other movements and ability to do their work, and thus be a stronger coercive act.

Oh yeah, and the story is bullshit. He graduated and received zero punishment from the University, and their is zero evidence that he was ever in danger of not graduating....

If you read the actual words in the story, it explicitly reported his fears. Hence the story is literally not bullshit under the normal understanding of the term.

The fact that the actual details of the story reveal that U of C did nothing anti-free speech or even to punish Kissinger's crimes (which is what I pointed out) doesn't change what the story was crafted to imply, an implication that is the only reason Mumbles posted the story and that Bernie seemed to hold as well.

So while the words in the story are not technically bullshit, then Mumbles' or any other interpretation of it as the University punishing speech is bullshit, and it has no relevance to the thread, except maybe that the protest itself (and your assertion that it was nothing other than free speech) is similar to "safe spaces" in revealing the kind entitled hypocrisy, perverted distortion of free speech, and lack of respect for other people's rights that leftists and an increasing % of college students have.

 

[ronburgundy]

OK, settle down folks, it was just a joke.

But, while I am here...

???

"Description" is what you get when you water down the meaning of "trigger warning" to the point that it's synonymous with "telling folks what's about to happen".

Words have meaning and the letter by the college doesn't represent a trigger warning.

I know conservatives can be humor impaired, so let me break down the initial joke I made, as well as the dry joke that is encapsulated by "pretty much the meaning of". First, we need to know what "trigger warning" means. Ronburgandy gets the general meaning right in the quote below, but gets one thing wrong, which I will address later in this post. A "trigger warning" is a statement issued before being exposed to words, images, or ideas, which warns of potentially stress inducing material included therein. The UofC issued a statement warning students of the University that "they can expect to be exposed to ideas that make them uncomfortable". They are not referring to physical comfort when they say "uncomfortable", but rather about mental or emotional stress. Thus they have issued a "trigger warning" that potential students of their University may encounter stress inducing words, images, or ideas if they attend the University without further warning, giving those potential students the chance they need to avoid such stress by not attending that University. It is very much a "trigger warning that there will be no trigger warnings", but the fact that I had to explain it to you now removes the humor from the statement.

On to "pretty much the meaning of" jokes. In order to slip this small amount of dry humor into a conversation, the person to whom you are responding (referred to as the 'straight man') has to use the word, or short phrase, on which you are about to base your joke. Further, its use is limited to situations where the straight man is explaining that the word, or short phrase, should not be used in a specific context, because the context involves 'X'. The person then unleashes the joke, like a carefully laid trap, ensnaring the straight man with the observation that the context explained by the straight man is pretty much the definition of 'X'. Once again, this joke is made considerably less funny by having to explain it to the humor impaired, however, it is a very dry joke, so guffaws of laughter are not expected to begin with. On the other hand, your subsequent attempt to wield this joke falls flat, because I never used the word "description", nor tried to explain that the word did not apply to the conversation because of context.

???

"Description" is what you get when you water down the meaning of "trigger warning" to the point that it's synonymous with "telling folks what's about to happen".

Words have meaning and the letter by the college doesn't represent a trigger warning.

Yeah, watering down and broadening definitions to the point where the words are meaningless is the favorite past-time of the intellectually dishonest seeking to create false equivalences.

The letter is a "warning" in the broadest sense and that is the sole similarity with "trigger warnings". It isn't a meaningful similarity since no one has ever objected to trigger warnings simply because they object to all warnings of any kind.

Trigger warnings are warnings about very specific pieces of writing/art. The UofC warning was not, but rather warned them that they would not get any specific warnings and thus they could encounter something unpleasant at any unexpected moment and that the University views this as something inherent and unavoidable to real education.

Trigger warnings are designed so that the pathetically weak of mind can retreat from the material without experiencing unpleasant thought or emotion. The UofC warning was designed to inform students they would not be able to do this and that in fact students are expected to engage in intellectual exchanges that could make them uncomfortable.

IOW, in every meaningful way and in every feature about trigger warnings that some find objectionable, the UofC warning is the exact opposite.

You were right until you drug you ideology into things with the bolded statement above. Trigger warnings are generally there to warn people who suffer from PTSD that what they are about to encounter might trigger the symptoms of their disorder.

No they are not. That might be their original impetus or their only valid use on a college campus, but they evolved into something beyond that were mere "potential discomfort" about ideas became included in the push for their more widespread use. A person sent into trauma by any passing references to an unpleasant topic would be unable to expose themselves to pretty much any form of media in daily life and probably should not be on college campus. So, such a limited used of real potential to trigger PTSD would only apply to the most extreme and unusually graphic depictions of traumatic events that are rarely ever encountered in daily life. No one would even know the term "trigger warning" if that is all they entailed.

As all evidence shows, College profs, especially those in Lit and Humanities were the issue most arises, are very liberal. Yet they, and not merely conservative ranters, are among the increasing objectors to trigger warnings, especially by students who are asking to be warned about every potential discomforting thought they might have, even if its their own subjective interpretation of an artistic work, which means that the "warning" would pretty much have to apply to all of literature and history. IOW, if you need such trigger warnings, you shouldn't be in college or out in public. You should lock yourself in your basement. Characterizing works ahead of time in terms of what they are about or how they will make you feel undermines much of the educational function of having students read these works. There needs to be a real and compelling reason to slap them onto such works in a college setting. In fact, a better solution for valid instances of trauma warning would be to have anyone with actual PTSD tied to specific topics be warned by a counselor who examines the syllabus for that student upon request.

 

[Malintent]

Whether it's a warning or not depends on who's reading it.

Which is pretty much the definition of a trigger warning.

so meta...

 

[laughing dog]

Your characterization is an over-exaggeration in my opinion. According to your characterization, any unwelcome protest on private property is an act of physical aggression.

No, that is exactly why these students did not simply hold an actual peaceful non-criminal protest on campus that U of C would have had no problem with.

No, it was peaceful. There was no violence.

They illegally broke into the administrations offices and refused to leave because they knew it would obstruct other movements and ability to do their work, and thus be a stronger coercive act.

Still a peaceful protest. BTW, where any of these students arrested?

The fact that the actual details of the story reveal that U of C did nothing anti-free speech or even to punish Kissinger's crimes (which is what I pointed out) doesn't change what the story was crafted to imply, an implication that is the only reason Mumbles posted the story and that Bernie seemed to hold as well.

You cannot possibly know that Mumbles had only one reason.

So while the words in the story are not technically bullshit, then Mumbles' or any other interpretation of it as the University punishing speech is bullshit, and it has no relevance to the thread, except maybe that the protest itself (and your assertion that it was nothing other than free speech) is similar to "safe spaces" in revealing the kind entitled hypocrisy, perverted distortion of free speech, and lack of respect for other people's rights that leftists and an increasing % of college students have.

Your conclusion is based on narrow and hypocritical interpretation of peaceful protests and the freedom of speech by conservatives or the law and order crowd.

 

[Trausti]

Which is pretty much the definition of a trigger warning.

so meta...

Triggered.

 

[Mumbles]

You missed the point. Administrators create "safe spaces" for themselves all the time.

More grotesque abuse of language to create false equivalence. Private property designated for specific individuals to perform specific jobs (e.g. the administration offices at a Private University) is not in any meaningful way similar to "safe spaces" which are designed to allow nearly anyone to enter but to prohibit anyone from voicing particular types of viewpoints. Only the latter is about specifically restricting particular viewpoints on a topic.

Nope. "Safe spaces" are in many respects modern lingo for areas like, say, LGBT clubs where people could go and simply be themselves without persecution (in theory), or on colleges, say Black Student Unions where they wouldn't always face the exact same questions about "Why do you have to make it about race?" in response to them discussing a plainly racial situation. And yes, these sometimes also get protested or face police raids. Faculty lounges, administrator meetings, and the like are similar, in that they don't get students, who come and go every few years, asking the same basic questions about what they're doing. And yes, it can be very common for college admins to retreat entirely, to the point where they're closed off entirely from students.

(And I'll note that, by their nature, the college/university admins are often an entirely distinct group from the student body, rather than a subset - so no analogies with here, thank you.)

This protest is equivalent to Target customers breaking and entering into Target corporate headquarters and refusing to leave until they lower their prices.
That isn't free speech or anything positive that should be protected. It is a criminal attack on other people's rights.

I know quite a few professors that despise the idea of students as people buying a product, first.

But as a better analogy, it would be more like marching around the corporate HQ to protest, say, Target's bathroom policy. Or even violating their policy in order to protest it.

Now, one can certainly discuss how appropriate a particular safe space is (I'd argue, for example, that the sudden creation of one in an open area at Mizzou was a terrible idea), but the idea that they'd have none at all is absurd.

Truthfully, that entire paragraph was simply absurd, as it seemed to use terms like "safe space" and "trigger warning" in their "ugh, these regressive leftists!" strawmen versions, but never bothered to define what they meant in the first place. But that's for another post, if I feel like it.

 

[repoman]

I occasionally work with the security manager in that video. I haven't seen him yet to get his opinion on any fallout that happened or didn't...
The guy gave a false name, btw, his real name is not Hugh Mungus - it is Mike Oxlong. But seriously, Hugh Mungus has no sexual subtext like Mike Oxlong would.

The woman filming it, Zarna Joshi, is pretty damn intense. Similar to Kshama Sawant in some ways.

Her mindset is pretty leftist and some of it makes sense, some seems way out there.





Oh and despite how right wing trolly I can be, I am an extreme "believer" (just looks at the facts - it is not faith it is simple evidence) that past and future fossil fuel use will totally destroy the ecological balance that the earth had before it was unleashed. Our maybe not so distant descendants will be looking down the barrel of Greenland totally melted and some of the larger Antarctic sheets breaking off. This is done deal, no backsies.

Also, increasing wet bulb temperatures in many places making human sized mammals impossible to survive. Shit, horse progenitors were the size of house cats because of heat dissipation issues.

So maybe the "superiority" of western technology and culture without the higher level of foresight and responsibility needed from this power (Spiderman's motto, anyone?) has not been a good thing.

Who knows, this year India such intense heat waves, that a couple decades ago people would have said you were talking science fiction to describe them.

Anyway, the massive blindspot that Libertarians/Conservatives/Alt-right have with Climate Change is disconcerting. The basics of this go back to 1820s for CO2 trapping heat and 1896 when Arrhenius made his great paper about it. and shit look at this 1958 video directed by Frank Capra, made for Bell Labs (which should not have had a conflict of interest):

 

[Trausti]

I may have accidentally triggered repoman.

 

[JonA]

Huh?

The letter was less likely prompted by the Seinfeld bit quoted in the article and more likely prompted by the trend of late for whiny - typically left-leaning - college brats to demand their universities shield them from everything they don't like and inflict censorship on anyone who doesn't 'think' like they do.

Trigger warnings do not "inflict censorship" on anyone, as the material is not removed from the classroom, or discussion, but rather they allow a person who may encounter stress as a result of the material or discussion to remove themselves from the setting. This is exactly what the UofC is doing in a very broad sense, they are issuing a statement allowing people who may be stressed by certain topics to remove themselves from the UofC setting.

Censorship referred to the uninviting of speakers.

As for this being a trigger warning - in any sense, broad or otherwise - you are just wrong. A trigger warning lets someone skate without doing the work. Anyone who heeds this "warning" and avoids the work of going to U of C will be certain not to get a degree from them.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Trigger warnings are designed so that the pathetically weak of mind can retreat from the material without experiencing unpleasant thought or emotion.

PTSD is real, and I believe a short statement such as: "graphic images and sounds of war", to be a valid warning for those who suffer from trauma. I do take exception to your description of PTSD sufferers to be "pathetically weak of mind", and invite you to volunteer at a veteran's hospital or home to educate yourself about the very real suffering of such people.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Which was almost entirely because of what he was saying and had nothing to do with:

Before the rally Kissinger said he entered the building under the guise of official business, and then propped open a locked door ...​

You missed the point. Administrators create "safe spaces" for themselves all the time. Students often have to barge in and protest precisely because they're often so egregious about refusing to leave those spaces in order to actually discuss the University itself with the students. The fact that they were hostile to even this shows clear hypocrisy.

We also have security and police that enforce our safe space.

Sincerely,
Nice Squirrel
University Administration in charge of Institutional Fascism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trigger warnings are designed so that the pathetically weak of mind can retreat from the material without experiencing unpleasant thought or emotion.

PTSD is real, and I believe a short statement such as: "graphic images and sounds of war", to be a valid warning for those who suffer from trauma. I do take exception to your description of PTSD sufferers to be "pathetically weak of mind", and invite you to volunteer at a veteran's hospital or home to educate yourself about the very real suffering of such people.

While I agree PTSD is real it's no excuse to avoid the coursework.

Put the warnings in the description of the class so someone can choose to not take it if they're likely to have a problem with it. (Equivalent to the warnings a couple of classes in college had about sexual subject matter that would be shown/discussed in class.)

 

[Nice Squirrel]

PTSD is real, and I believe a short statement such as: "graphic images and sounds of war", to be a valid warning for those who suffer from trauma. I do take exception to your description of PTSD sufferers to be "pathetically weak of mind", and invite you to volunteer at a veteran's hospital or home to educate yourself about the very real suffering of such people.

While I agree PTSD is real it's no excuse to avoid the coursework.

Put the warnings in the description of the class so someone can choose to not take it if they're likely to have a problem with it. (Equivalent to the warnings a couple of classes in college had about sexual subject matter that would be shown/discussed in class.)

Yes, that is where the trigger warning needs to be.

 

[JonA]

PTSD is real, and I believe a short statement such as: "graphic images and sounds of war", to be a valid warning for those who suffer from trauma. I do take exception to your description of PTSD sufferers to be "pathetically weak of mind", and invite you to volunteer at a veteran's hospital or home to educate yourself about the very real suffering of such people.

While I agree PTSD is real it's no excuse to avoid the coursework.

Put the warnings in the description of the class so someone can choose to not take it if they're likely to have a problem with it. (Equivalent to the warnings a couple of classes in college had about sexual subject matter that would be shown/discussed in class.)

And when the class is a requirement?

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2016/08/university_of_chicago_kicks_po.html

Students at the University of Chicago are being warned (though those of us who actually like learning might call it an upsell) that the college does not do trigger warnings, safe spaces, or cancel invitations to controversial speakers and tells prospective students to expect ideas being challenged as part of their higher ed experience.

Excellent!

Does this mean that the University of Chicago will start teaching economics other than Milton Friedman's largely discredited by events neoliberal economics?

Probably nothing inflicted on us in the US in the last forty years has caused more damage to our economy than the University of Chicago economics.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

While I agree PTSD is real it's no excuse to avoid the coursework.

Put the warnings in the description of the class so someone can choose to not take it if they're likely to have a problem with it. (Equivalent to the warnings a couple of classes in college had about sexual subject matter that would be shown/discussed in class.)

And when the class is a requirement?

Not sure what required class that would be, but arrangements should be made.