It pains me that Coyne was able to include this statement: But happily moved onto a sentence like this later in the article: There is a HUGE difference to purposefully seeking out "disturbing ideas" for your own education and shoving those ideas down the throat of someone who actually lived through one of them. What if this was a different situation? Someone who had PTSD and struggled with memories of war. Would you find it okay to watch a professor vividly describe a horrific scene to this person, and then still find it okay to marvel at the beauty and splendor of your professor's words? When did we stop thinking about the victim here? When did it become the norm to say, " Well, I'm fine with the topic, therefore everyone should be"? I don't agree that literature itself should come with warnings. It is a personal choice to read books and a personal choice to subject yourself to reliving the memories. Universities, on the other hand, are a different story. Coyne even mentions that the particular course he discussed was a requirement, so the student didn't have the option of opting out. Frankly, I'm not even a victim or survivor of anything, but I would be deeply troubled by a thorough description of a rape scene. I remember one class I took where we did an analysis of a documentary on pedophilia. You know what my prof said? "If you aren't comfortable with the film I've chosen, please let me know and I can give you another film to study." That's it. I don't use this word often but this is literally the only thing he needed to do: give the option to opt out. In the particularly situation Coyne discusses, how hard would it have been to say, "Hey, we're gonna be discussing rape here, give me a shout if that's not cool with you and we can sort something else out"?! We have lost sight of the fact that consent is present in everything we do.As a survivor of sexual assault, the student described being triggered while reading such detailed accounts of rape throughout the work.
All of that saddened me, deeply upset me, and brought me to tears. But I am glad I did it, for in a way it’s enriched my life.
Surely by going to university though, you are essentially signing up to discussing "'disturbing ideas' for your own education"? You said "it's a personal choice to read books...", but it's also a personal choice to go to a university. I suppose one aspect you can argue is that all students had to take this particular course. If someone was studying English Literature for example, and was complaining about triggering subjects, I would say that person is simply in the wrong field of study and should study something else. In this case, it seems all students have to take the course regardless of the major. However, as an adult you need to take responsibility for your own education. Research the college and the courses you might have to do, and if you think that some of it will be an issue, then go to another university. It seems strange to me to go to a university without researching what you will be studying, and then complaining about it. If the professor was describing the scene to the individual, alone then that would definitely be messed up. However, if it was a lecture theatre of 200-300 students, then yes, absolutely. I will definitely marvel at the writers words (if I did in fact find them "marvelous" of course). EDIT: I was supposed to mention that I'm coming from a non-American university background. I don't know how the university culture is there, but I'm just writing under the assumption that these things are happening at my university.There is a HUGE difference to purposefully seeking out "disturbing ideas" for your own education and shoving those ideas down the throat of someone who actually lived through one of them.
What if this was a different situation? Someone who had PTSD and struggled with memories of war. Would you find it okay to watch a professor vividly describe a horrific scene to this person, and then still find it okay to marvel at the beauty and splendor of your professor's words?
I do see what you're saying about university being a choice. However, I have met FAR too many people who say, "I'm only here because my parents want me to be a doctor/engineer/space cowboy/etc." I would be interested in a study about what percentage of students think of their education as a personal choice as opposed to a requirement pushed from parental/societal pressure. As well, in American culture, your university's ranking is an important factor in your choice, one that may well take precedence over the specific course content taught. I can concede a little that my scenario was not perfect. I meant to convey that it is absolutely okay for such a person to be uncomfortable in such a situation where they felt unable to remove themselves for a number of reasons (a dismissive prof, grades) and ask that a warning or other option be available.
That would definitely be an interesting study. You get that a little bit over here in Ireland as well, but for the most part the people I know really love their subjects. I suppose that could be a factor why "trigger warnings" aren't really a phenomenon in universities here; people mostly know exactly what they're getting themselves into. I know the price of tuition there is ridiculously high, which means you're under pressure to get a maximum return on investment. This means people are under pressure to go to a top school/study certain things, etc. I wonder if by reducing the cost of tuition (and therefore giving people more freedom over their studies), you would also reduce the cases of people who feel uncomfortable in classrooms. As for providing alternative material for people to study, wouldn't that mean that certain students have a different degree of education to others? Take for example "Sandra", a student studying English who is triggered by scenes of rape/violence. She will now have to avoid a lot of works that would be studied; particularly classics. A lot of very significant ancient Greek/Roman and medieval texts would be pretty much written off. Now when graduation comes around, she isn't as well versed in these subjects as her peers, which could affect her if she chooses to go for further study. Essentially the university has failed her when it comes to her education, and it now reflects badly on them. Wouldn't you say it's within the best interests of the university to ensure that all students are given the same level of education?
I was an English major, and it's certainly possible to receive a thorough education without having to read explicit rape scenes, and the example of ancient Greek and Roman texts doesn't really apply since those works aren't in English (those would be read in Classics courses, not English courses - at least at my university). The topic of rape is probably unavoidable, but specific scenes? I don't think it's exactly crucial to include them. And it's even possible to read quite a bit of Ovid without having to read rape scenes. So if a professor were to say, "This story contains a passage about rape, which we will be discussing next lecture," I don't see how it would be so bad for a student or two to ask to read a different story and write a paper on it instead of attending that particular lecture.
My girlfriend is an English major, and a fair few of the works she's had to study have had very explicit material. She's in France at the moment without any internet, otherwise I'd ask for her to weigh-in on this conversation. In any case, if Greek/Roman texts aren't part of the English course then my apologies. Change my analogy from 'Sandra the English student' to 'Sandra the Classics student' and the analogy still holds. In any case the discussion isn't only limited to rape scenes, I have heard this brought up with regards to 'violence' in literature, which brings a whole new dimension of complication. I agree that the professor having to give a warning wouldn't be a big issue, but the problem is that people will then begin to avoid those themes. It would be inevitable that a proportion of students will be graduating who simply don't know about a certain themes/subjects in literature. I'm an engineering student, and I would say it would be similar if an engineering graduate managed to go through their full 4 years of their undergrad without studying any calculus. There are gaps in their knowledge that put them at a distinct disadvantage. My argument is that simply by studying a subject in university you are consenting to be taught about certain things. If you don't want to learn about certain topics in English/Engineering/Underwater Basketweaving, surely you wouldn't be there in the first place?
Well sure, but I'm also rejecting certain things - for instance, I rejected all mathematics by virtue of choosing to study English. I also rejected studying the Classics by choosing a major where I wouldn't have to read them. I'm also not suggesting that it's possible to avoid all uncomfortable material, or that one should. But it's entirely possible to know oneself enough not to choose a course specifically on the horror genre, or to see a book on the syllabus you know is replete with, say, racial violence, that you think you might respond badly to and have a discussion with the professor about alternatives (if this is a class you must take to fulfill your major requirements, that is). I also think it's a little different to say "This topic is difficult, I'd rather not learn it" and "This particular lecture might give me panic attacks and make the rest of my classes today impossible to attend." I'm arguing in the case for the latter that there be a little leeway, that's all. Additionally, I think something like English or History is a little different from engineering or mathematics, where disregarding a period or only briefly touching on it is not the same as skipping an entire topic like calculus, primarily because what now counts as "canon" and what a professor thinks is worth teaching is very subjective. Two different professors teaching the same period of English in an introductory level class at my university taught completely different works (e.g. my friends studied James Joyce in that class and I didn't; we studied play manuscripts and they didn't - in fact I don't think we had any overlapping authors at all). And the fact that I never read Middlemarch doesn't really change the substance of my education, I would argue, but that's pretty tangential.
Whoa, what college did you go to? At mine we had breadth requirements which meant that even if you majored in the liberal arts, like English, you had to take so many math, science/lab, language requirements and so on. I would agree with what you present about the variability of what's being taught in a given English class depending on the professor to a pretty significant extent. While I don't think that an instructor should completely change their lesson plans and syllabus to avoid an uncomfortable subject, it would be possible to plan an entire course gently avoiding certain topics if the professor had that as a goal when they sat down to plot it all out. However I think that generally speaking, especially if you are likely to be the only person disturbed by a topic, the onus is on the student (or the person likely to be triggered) to privately approach their teacher (or other authority figure) during an appropriate time to talk 1:1, like during office hours, to raise the potential issue/communicate that the student is sensitive to certain topics, and instead of asking the professor to change their plans to accomodate the student, I think the student should come prepared with suggestions or ideas for how they will manage their issue. While in an ideal situation you might have a professor who will alter reading material and discussion items in order to be sensitive to a student's needs, I think it is kind of arrogant and self-centered for one person who has an issue to expect and ask that the course experience for all students be changed just to accomodate them. I also think that such topics, and potential triggers, should only be brought up pre-emptively when it looks like that might be necessary. For instance there was a question recently, "If someone has triggers, should they let other people know about their triggers and ask that their friends refrain from discussing them?" basically asking the etiquette on such a situation. That question made me think about the subject and in short I concluded that one should try and only bring up the fact that [x] is an area of discomfort and triggering, if there's a reasonable expectation or past history that indicates that [x] is probably going to come up. If I walked around telling everyone I met, immediately, that "rape triggers me, please don't talk about it," that would come across very off-putting-ly. In addition it serves to try and make everyone bow to accomodate *me" - when frankly who knows if rape would have even come up otherwise? It is drawing more attention to the whole issue/event, and I think that's part of why some people view those who talk about triggers dismissively. Because it can seem like an attention grab. I think if you have an issue it is up to you to manage it; much like diabetes, while I can be aware of your sensitivity and try to accomodate it, at the end of the day, the person who needs to fully manage the problem is the person whose problem it is. If something is triggering for a person in a university class and it comes up in class, the triggered person should excuse themselves as politely as possible and return when the discussion is over or they are more composed. Personally, needles make me pass out. I've been in a psychology class watching a video when suddenly there was an injection on the screen. I immediately began to feel ill and lose consciousness. I had to be carted out of the room on a stretcher actually as I wasn't able to make it to the door, haha. But point of the matter is that I didn't expect anyone else to know of my sensitivity, I didn't blame the teacher for putting the video on, and I didn't suggest we no longer watch such videos in class. I tried to manage my condition as much as possible and when I could not I removed myself. If I had expected the situation to repeat I would have spoken with the professor quietly and we would have reached a solution. It certainly doesn't require me to run around and tell everyone I know that I have a tendency to pass out in certain situations. And I can't ask others to refrain from normal behavior "in the off chance" it'll make me pass out. My health is my responsibility. I can't blame someone else if I do not manage it properly.I rejected all mathematics by virtue of choosing to study English
I only had to take two science courses, all the other breadth requirements I'd satisfied with high AP and SAT scores. I still took a language for fun, but I didn't need to. Also, I was responding to someone in Ireland, where those breadth requirements don't exist at university level. I'm not sure exactly which point you're trying to make - you say at first that a student should talk to their professor at the outset to say they're sensitive to a given topic, and then later that bringing it up is rude or attention-seeking. If I'm taking an introductory class, and the name of the class is a time period (British Literature from 1880-1970, for instance) I may expect to see certain works, being familiar with the period, or I may see on the syllabus a work I've never come across. Usually a professor will describe a work at the end of the lecture before you read it, to point out certain things to pay attention to, and I think at that moment it would be worth pointing out whether there is graphic material. That would prompt someone with potential triggers in that material to come talk to the professor privately, and either ask to skip that particular chapter or read an alternative work by that author or similar (usually professors have several other works they wish they had time to teach that they can suggest quickly anyway). That way there's at least a heads up, and an individual looking out for his or her own mental health doesn't have to share personal triggers unnecessarily, or in a way you might see as attention-seeking. I see it as something that can be handled sensitively but casually. For your needle story, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a more sensitive professor might have stated before watching the video that there would be needles, and allow you to excuse yourself before causing a bigger distraction for the rest of the class (passing out and needing to be carried out on a stretcher). I'm not saying it's the teacher's fault, but the teacher knows what you're watching/reading/whatever, and you don't, so it doesn't seem like a terrible idea for the teacher to be the one to say hey, there's a gory part about 5 minutes in, close your eyes or leave and come back in 10 minutes. It's more of a courtesy than anything else, and helps the class run smoothly. I took a history class that covered WWI, and the day we talked about chemical warfare, the professor warned us that there would be graphic photos before he clicked over to that slide. He's not going to avoid showing them, but it's fair to give warning to allow those who know they'd be triggered to take care of themselves. I don't see how he would gain anything by trying to surprise us with them, so why not? How long does it take to say "The next slide will have graphic photos"? It's not a disruption, and might help avoid a disruption. right?
The needle example is an interesting one. I think if a student declared that they had a phobia of x at some point, I would absolutely warn them that x will be shown in class/present in a text on a particular week. But it's difficult to account for all phobias. What if there was a movie with a spider in it? Or a book? Should the professor warn people with arachnophobia to leave/shut their eyes at a particular point, or skip a particular chapter of the book? _refugee_ mentioned being warned about death being discussed in a text. I've seen course syllabi where every single week could be marked with "Trigger warning: death". It's really difficult to predict how people will react to certain texts, and trying to put in trigger warnings can quickly become a strange guessing game of figuring out (and sometimes spoiling) challenging aspects of texts.
I think it just depends on the context, and the type of class. Like I said, in my mind, it's just a courtesy, not something I would suggest mandating. Now that that professor has had the experience of a student fainting in class, he or she might consider mentioning it in the future before showing the video. I'm not suggesting that we all have to be mindreaders, or that everyone always has to announce to strangers and acquaintances all the things that might trigger them. I guess I'm just saying that there are better ways of addressing this particular type of experience outside of either "it's your problem, shut up and deal with it" or "everyone has to walk on eggshells and cater to every issue". I think those responses are simplistic and immature, and it's not absurd to look for understanding somewhere in the middle.
I agree with this sentiment but there needs to be a way for people to learn the same lessons without using the same material. This will be increasingly hard when going over ancient texts though. Any ideas?
I have been looking for something with exactly this point. I recently got into a discussion on Hubsky where I was disagreed with(in mostly healthy discussion) for recommending that people who have these triggers see therapists to learn to deal with these triggers instead of getting mad at others for discussing something that makes them uncomfortable. All to often the person who mentions something causing the trigger is the "bad guy" in these situations. Obviously we don't want to intentionally hurt people and is important to be truly apologetic and empathetic. However it's also important for those people with triggers to not hide behind them and to learn to overcome them. The world is a less than forgiving place and it is important to do what YOU can instead of only relying on other people to avoid any kind of controversy. If I had a badge I would give it to just for this post.
I imagine part of why you might have caught some flak for this is because the advice isn't anything unique--telling someone to "get over it" either through help of therapy or on their own doesn't solve the problem. Therapy doesn't just make people feel better, either--rape victims don't become okay with thinking about rape all of the time because they sit down and talk it out with someone who is willing to listen to them on a regular basis. And second, it just seems a little insensitive. Why do trigger warnings bother you? If you didn't read/view/experience something because somebody warned you that it was going to be intense in a specific way, the trigger warning has kept you from being put in a bad mood, or worse...and if you don't use it, it's literally 15 seconds of your time devoted to trying to help other people be comfortable. Your post is like getting mad at the Parent's Guide on IMDB, or like being pissed off when an amusement park warns you that you will get wet on a ride. And you know what? It isn't even about being offended--trigger warnings, although infrequently frivolous, are about maintaining and respecting the mental health needs of other people. And finally, it isn't like Columbia stopped teaching Ovid to students, they just gave them an alternative assignment like goo mentioned. The whole world isn't being turned into a bouncy house to protect these people, we're just putting warning signs on particularly uncomfortable sections of it.
An important thing to remember in conversations about triggering, which people on the internet, especially redditors, like to refer to as "muh feels", but it's not about feelings or mood largely. Survivors of rape, or assault, or war, or whatever causes PTSD, or various other trauma-induced mental issues, have a serious risk of dissociation wherein, among other problems, a continuity of consciousness is broken. Now if you're reading an article at, say, your office, and you have issues with PTSD from your rape, reading a detailed description of something similar may cause you to dissociate. And this is just one of many issues that could arise, that are simply solved by adding something like "warning: graphic content regarding war trauma". This is something that causes no harm to the writer, or the unaffected people, but means a great deal to a victim, so they have the right to choose to read it or not, or save it for a more appropriate time.
The social stigma stems from the few cases where trigger warnings are essentially used as censorship, shutting down debate. Generally not with things like rape, but by labeling dissenting opinions as "triggering." This is most common in online forums, but I have heard of it happening in college classrooms.
Sure, but I feel like the difference between the two is pretty clear, and I'm not sure if it's fair for the stigma to condemn the entire practice, rather than the specific misuses of it--which is what I personally tend to see, but this might not reflect the total reality.
I would like to say, while I'm generally not too sure how I feel about trigger warnings, that when I had my abortion in college and went around telling my professors what was going on, one English professor proactively looked at the syllabus, told me the next class was going to be about Death and that maybe I would want to miss it. I would have gone and I wouldn't have been triggered by the lecture, but I really needed time, space, peace, and to be with myself at the time. I was so, so greatful he did that for me. To me I guess that is the way a trigger should be dealt with. A student who maybe can't handle something should get a private, considerate "heads up" from the teacher, and the student can then choose to participate or not. If I had triggers I would not want the entire class to know about them, I think it would make it worse.
Of course, this is the goal. It's not necessary that everyone knows who or what is being referred to, but a simple layout of a syllabus would qualify as a trigger warning. It's merely having the availability of information that will be presented in a class, or an article, or a forum, or what have you. People seem to get extremely bent out of shape over... providing what may be encountered, and I honestly can't understand how people equate it with censorship. The topic is still present, the content still there, there's merely a warning going into it. It's not different than network television providing a content warning before graphic imagery. And if you want to get to lower levels even, wherein we're discussing people that have certain phobias or would just rather not see something on, say, their tumblr dash or hubski feed, and you're providing content you know someone will see and would rather not, providing something as simple as a tag saying "spiders" puts you out none and provides a benefit for someone. Of course this isn't such a large matter if you forget as it would be if we're talking about potential trauma. I see plenty of people complain about triggers existing and being shamed for not including them, but I've yet to actually see someone call out another for not including triggers unless it was a serious matter. Mostly everyone complaining about having to provide a content warning is completely oblivious to the effects of trauma.
Sincerely, your explanation makes a ton of sense. Thanks for taking the time!
A have addressed a few of your arguments in a reply to another person before I read this. My concern is that people are forced to tiptoe around others insecurities and often the person triggering the person is seen as the bad guy for not knowing that it was their trigger. It's not that we can't let people know that they will be subjected to these kinds of things. Also everyone seems to have something that sets them off and understanding that other people don't know what is going to set you of is just as important as using that information to decide what you will subject that person to. We often see only our side especially when it is something we feel emotionally about. Often emotions give us a false sense of being right or even righteous. I simply ask that we take that into account before villainizing someone especially an educator who is well within there courses subject matter.
I think if you accidentally say something to set someone off, you're not an evil person, but that's not what this article is about. There's a large distance between a social faux pas and forcing a PTSD victim to relive their experience(s). And yes, many people will have things that set them off, but most of the time you have to intentionally be an asshole to set off important things (for example, jokes about rape, domestic abuse, death in general, etc.). For the vast majority of things, it's pretty difficult to just stumble into--and for almost any situation, a heartfelt apology is literally all that you need to be right as rain in most people's books. I really, really want to emphasize and be very careful to state that I don't think the educator is at any fault here. I think that Ovid should be taught, if that's what the college chooses. The professor, the university, and the Greek Poet are not crooks because they've delivered this literature to the students, but it would be incredibly considerate if they would all keep in mind that the subject matter is very intense, and to give proper warnings to people who might have good reason to avoid it.
And that's where the divide really shows itself. In general, and obviously this is anecdotal, the people I speak to who are most critical of trigger warnings are the ones who express that no joke should be off-limits. So there's this worry that trigger warnings = censorship = jokes about rape not being allowed. Which is flawed thinking, in my opinion. Trigger warnings aren't meant to censor anything, they're in fact meant to allow people to create whatever they want while taking a quick second to warn potential consumers that there might be some graphic or obscene material within. The trigger warnings = censorship thinking seems, to me, like one that has a subtle slippery slope most people don't consider. What I mean by that is, it seems people thing trigger warnings need to be given out for literally anything that someone might not like. And I just don't see that happening. I don't think we're going to get to a point where someone requires every article to put trigger warnings in it for a political viewpoint just so they don't end up upsetting someone who doesn't agree with that viewpoint. Trigger warnings are meant for the types of things that can cause psychological demons to resurface and put someone in major distress. I can't say I've ever met someone who undergoes an anxiety attack because they read a conservative viewpoint on Fox News. But I've met someone who had no warning that The Hills Have Eyes was going to contain a graphic rape scene, and had a massive breakdown because her father had raped her years earlier. Sure, someone could say, "But people can suffer PTSD from lots of things so there might just be someone out there who gets triggered by Fox News and now you're requiring them to put warnings on their articles!" However, I'd have to see some evidence and proof and hear from actual professionals to believe that someone would be diagnosed has having Fox News be their trigger due to some event that occurred in their life, rather than something much more traumatic that has some real research explaining it.And yes, many people will have things that set them off, but most of the time you have to intentionally be an asshole to set off important things (for example, jokes about rape, domestic abuse, death in general, etc.).
He might have been referring to a conversation he had with me a couple of days ago, and this was exactly the problem (assuming it's my conversation he was indeed referring to). It started about whether intentions excuse someone from something hurtful they did and his argument was that people allow themselves to be hurt by words and ideas, and they need to learn better ways to cope. And my argument was that most people already do this but the discussion is about what to do once they've already been hurt, where saying "it wasn't my intention" doesn't help anyone.I imagine part of why you might have caught some flak for this is because the advice isn't anything unique--telling someone to "get over it" either through help of therapy or on their own doesn't solve the problem. Therapy doesn't just make people feel better, either--rape victims don't become okay with thinking about rape all of the time because they sit down and talk it out with someone who is willing to listen to them on a regular basis.
Yes, but the way to do so should be handled by a professional, like you said. What happens the most on the internet is that anyone who mentions that certain things trigger them is immediately spammed with endless copypasta and jokes about "LE TRIGGERED LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL I M LE ATTACK COPTER". And more than likely, that person will be sent the exact things that they mentioned trigger them, because the internet is a horrible place and gives praise to the most horrible actions. I don't think anyone with triggers is trying to "hide behind them" other than the very tiny amount of people on tumblr who misuse them and that nobody would ever even know about if not for places like /r/TumblrInAction going out of their way to find, highlight, and declare "THIS IS WHAT ALL SJWS ARE LIKE AND THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU". Yes, the world is a less than forgiving place, but that doesn't mean we should expect people who have experienced extreme trauma to just suck it up and deal with it. I spent time in a mental hospital and would've honestly beat the shit out of anyone who said that, because there were people there such as a woman in her forties who lost both of her daughters in the span of a year, with the last one dying due to a house fire she was in with her. If that woman has trouble being around fire, are you really going to tell her, "Suck it up. Fire happens, and I'm not going to stop making jokes about dead babies in fires just to accommodate your little trigger thing"?However it's also important for those people with triggers to not hide behind them and to learn to overcome them.
And the other important thing to note is that even if they are dealing with it with a professional, they will recommend that they try to avoid things which could 'trigger' them (so read reviews about a movie before watching in case it contains a graphic rape scene). This is because getting over issues like PTSD, fears, or anxieties, requires a gradual desensitisation to the material under controlled conditions and preferably with an expert there. Forcing people to view material that could trigger them without a warning is essentially a process called "flooding", where you simply force them to deal with their issues by dumping them in the deep end of their problems, and this unsurprisingly has the effect of setting back any progress made and often making the problems worse. So it always seems strange when people say that we shouldn't use trigger warnings because people just need to "deal with it". No shit, but part of dealing with it includes being able to prepare and compose yourself for possible upcoming triggers. Trigger warnings are just society's way of saying, "Hey, if it takes a tiny note or 2 seconds to mention something that might help you avoid having a debilitating and horrific attack, which would set back your mental health progress by a significant amount of time, then I'd prefer to do that".Yes, but the way to do so should be handled by a professional, like you said.
And that's mainly because the people who most often get angry about trigger warnings have never experienced the kind of psychological trauma that results in someone having a complete and total loss of their faculties when triggered. Shit, I didn't even realize how serious this shit could be until I spent time in a mental hospital as a patient.
To be fair the article isn't about the internet its about college and learning. I do agree th at the professor should have offered alternate course with for anyone who did not wish to participate free such reasons. A simple truth about humanity proven time and time again through science. People tend to hide from their problems instead of face them. It's a short term coping mechanism that our minds naturally use and is hard to break that. I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I'm not blaming the victim for using what our minds are trained to do. I'm simply saying it needs to be overcome and that takes effort not censorship of everyone around you. Naturally those around you should not want to trigger you but in life it IS going to happen. The only thing YOU can do as the triggered is learn how to handle yourself when you are triggered and deal with it accordingly. Not censor those around you. Making jokes in someone's face is a lot different than learning subject matter containing that kind of material. That point is a gross exaggeration not rooted in the reality of the same situation. Edit: auto correct failure
So...asking people to maybe not make jokes about dead babies around a woman who just suffered a miscarriage that caused PTSD is censorship. Sorry, but I'm no longer going to participate in this discussion. It's clear we fundamentally disagree on societal interaction, the definition of censorship, and whether or not a person suffering from crippling mental illness should be blamed for not signing up with the first therapist they can find and being back to normal in a week.I'm simply saying it needs to be overcome and that takes effort not censorship of everyone around you.
While I agree it's important to overcome triggers, these things do take time. Seeing a therapist does not magically make it all better. Some people (I like to think myself) have the gift of moving on; others, not so much, and need a little more time to work through it at their own pace. Encourage, but do not force. Perhaps the world could be described as a little more forgiving if we made the effort to accommodate the struggles others face!
It's hard to achieve that balance. I certainly agree with what you're saying, but I think that we're shifting into the realm of pandering to every little thing that makes people feel weird inside and it takes away from those that have actual issues. I think that it's important to be challenged - to feel that weird feeling of being uncomfortable at little things if people can hope to be able to overcome real traumatic situations. That said, the professor in the article should've given the option, like yours did, to say "no thanks" and do an alternate assignment. No reason to force someone to relive that experience. I'd be interested to read more on the subject; I don't personally understand how someone reads something and it affects them so much. I understand that it does but I don't know how/why. I'm not very empathetic and I've never had anything like that happen, so it's a foreign concept to me. Edit - I guess it doesn't really matter. kingmudsy explained it like a boss.
I'd like to know what leads you to believe this. If we were really shifting into "the realm of pandering to every little thing that makes people feel weird inside" then how would shows like Modern Family be possible considering how many people have very strong hate against homosexuality? How did same-sex marriage become legal in the entire country? How does Miley Cyrus have a career at all? I mean, don't get me wrong, I used to think this was definitely happening, back when I was a regular on /r/TumblrInAction. But people have been claiming for decades that "the PC police is ruining the world" yet we've had a golden age of television during that time with shows like Seinfeld, Breaking Bad, The Wire, and Game of Thrones.I think that we're shifting into the realm of pandering to every little thing that makes people feel weird inside and it takes away from those that have actual issues.
I mean, you know there was a time where you could get beaten with a ruler for having your knees show, right? Or where saying anything that could be remotely perceived as sympathetic to communism could make you unemployable and publicly shamed? I'd say that, as far as PC goes, we've come a long way towards letting people be open. Besides, if you really want to talk about PC gone wild, maybe you should be focusing on Texas' schoolbooks rewriting history by excluding Jim Crow laws, instead of a teacher giving students the ability to read something different for their class.
As far as I can tell, the majority of folks have a neutral or positive view of homosexuality. That would explain why there are more and more shows involving same-sex relationships or situations. These companies like Netflix have metrics on metrics about what their viewers would have a positive reaction toward. I don't know enough about the legislative process surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage to comment on that one, but I can only imagine that the many pro-gay-marriage groups pressuring politicians and a shift in public opinion contributed to that. Pure speculation though. I didn't know Miley Cyrus had a career. I think you're being facetious, but there are at least one or two even more ridiculous things going on in the world. I have no idea how the hell she would have a career though. The things that really get me are when kids in elementary school are expelled and shit for drawing a gun or making a poptart pistol. I think "POC" is just a veil to hide behind. Just say "X" people. To me, people of color sounds more racist than PC. I don't believe that we need to say stuff like "cerebrally challenged" or "doorperson" instead of doorman/doorwoman(if that's a thing). It's obnoxious. If the person I'm talking to can't figure out what I mean, then they can ask, but I loathe when someone tells me in that snarky, holier-than-thou tone to use the PC term. I honestly believe that if we stop giving special little groups for everything, that we'll become a more homogeneous society. Everyone wants to be a special butterfly, but we're forgetting that we're all just humans. I'm tall as hell (6'5"/198.12cm) but I don't need someone to call me vertically advantaged. I'm not very empathetic, but I don't want someone to call me emotionally challenged or whatever the hell you'd call it. I have varying aspects of my being just like any other person. I don't need or want to be placed in a special category besides "human being." Bam. Give me my rights. Treat me like everyone else. Give me a fair go. I think that's what everyone else really wants (maybe not the "no special category" thing, but the rights and whatnot.) Why it's not that way, I'm really not sure. I feel ramble-y and I'm losing focus. Let me know if you want me to expound on any of what I said, or if I've presented an incorrect fact.
This part really sticks out to me, because the "pop tart pistol" you're referencing is a clear case of people accepting what they're told second hand rather than looking into the issue themselves. That kid wasn't expelled for his pop tart, he was kicked out because he had frequently misbehaved, including trying to grope other students, and neither him nor his parents attempted to change his behavior. And that's where I honestly believe a lot of this "PC is ruining the world!" rhetoric comes from: places like /r/TumblrInAction and media outlets that function on the same plane are able to share false information or make it incredibly misleading, and it becomes "truth" because people would rather believe a title telling them the world is going to shit than spend a few minutes google and reading articles showing that no, the world is actually doing ok all things considered. I mean, she's on tours, she's got famous photoshoots, she's been in the media pretty frequently and a lot of people really like her music. Why am I the facetious one when you're denying that she has a career? Are you a person of color? Because, let's be honest, the majority of people who seem to find PoC to be a problematic term are not PoC, and just want to insert themselves into the conversation. The fact is, PoC has become a widely accepted term by people who happen to be of color. That's because calling someone black or african very easily associates someone with a race/country/nationality that they very well may not be part of.
1. This is the first time I've ever heard this term. 2. Are you implying that psychological diagnoses are not...ok? Like...if someone has developmental issues, what are you wanting their condition to be referred to as? I can honestly say that, other than blatant trolls TiA and reddit in general has fallen for, I have never seen someone actually throw a fit about the nomenclature used to refer to people who hold jobs related to doors. Again, this comes back to what I said before, that a lot of this "PC is ruining the world" rhetoric seems based entirely on secondhand information or actual bullshit. Like you're creating a world where you're the victim of other people who don't actually exist. Do you consider their tone snarky because they're asking you to use a different word than, say, "retard" or "faggot"? Are you sure you aren't just taking offense to someone asking that you acknowledge their humanity just as much as they acknowledge yours? It feels like you've created a caricature of socially-minded liberals that, I'll be honest, doesn't exist outside of the deepest, darkest, trolliest parts of tumblr and maybe the occasional college freshman who just learned about feminism and got over-excited. And you're forgetting that not all humans have the same experiences nor are all humans treated equally both under the law and in general. What you're essentially saying here is that transgender people should just shut the fuck up and act normal and they'll stop getting killed. That PoC should stop caring about the disproportionate force used against them by police time and time again because hashtag all lives matter. Can't imagine that'll ever happen. Mk, but you know that there are legitimate mental illnesses and disorders that can cause people to have problems with empathy or expressing and controlling their emotions, right? I've been diagnosed as bipolar, with ADHD, and PTSD. If you haven't been diagnosed has having mental issues, then I highly doubt anyone will refer to you as emotionally challenged, unless they're doing so as a joke or insult. It's not that way because, no matter how much you hope and wish and dream that every human is the same, we're a very troubled species that has a lot of issues with anything different from us. It's not that way because, no matter how much we would all love to be treated equally, we still have elected officials with immense power that use said power to keep women and minorities "in their place" and at a disadvantage. What you need to do is face up to reality. You need to accept that people are going to have their "special categories" because they want to SHOW YOU why the status quo, heterosexual white male perception of the world is flawed, because the people in those "special categories" are treated unfairly and have a lot of obstacles that most white, straight people will never experience. Now, have the dynamics improved compared to even fifty years ago? Sure! But we're far and away from an equal world, much less a single country in that world having equality, much less a single state in the USA having equality.The things that really get me are when kids in elementary school are expelled and shit for drawing a gun or making a poptart pistol.
I didn't know Miley Cyrus had a career. I think you're being facetious, but there are at least one or two even more ridiculous things going on in the world. I have no idea how the hell she would have a career though.
To me, people of color sounds more racist than PC.
I don't believe that we need to say stuff like "cerebrally challenged"
or "door person" instead of doorman/doorwoman(if that's a thing).
It's obnoxious. If the person I'm talking to can't figure out what I mean, then they can ask, but I loathe when someone tells me in that snarky, holier-than-thou tone to use the PC term.
I honestly believe that if we stop giving special little groups for everything, that we'll become a more homogeneous society. Everyone wants to be a special butterfly, but we're forgetting that we're all just humans.
I'm tall as hell (6'5"/198.12cm) but I don't need someone to call me vertically advantaged.
I'm not very empathetic, but I don't want someone to call me emotionally challenged or whatever the hell you'd call it.
I have varying aspects of my being just like any other person. I don't need or want to be placed in a special category besides "human being." Bam. Give me my rights. Treat me like everyone else. Give me a fair go. I think that's what everyone else really wants (maybe not the "no special category" thing, but the rights and whatnot.) Why it's not that way, I'm really not sure.
I am actually responding to lifestyle again as he has me blocked. Tv shows and comedy are completely different. Most of those shows shed light on the subjects, which may not be PC, in subtle ways that help people understand them without directly challenging peoples beliefs. They teach tolerance under the guise of comedy. Andy lake can very easily choose not to watch them and there is a rating system already in place to let people know what kind of show they are subjecting themselves to. Game if thrones is set in a scenario vastly different from our own reality so it doesn't really hit close to home for people or challenge their beliefs seeing as it's not real. It's fictional not factual. To be honest I'm not that familiar with the show as I don't watch series until they are complete so I can binge watch them. Therefore my argument for that one is purely assumed based on my understanding of what i have been told about it and im not qualified to discredit that particular show for your point. Breaking bad takes a look at the world's drug underground, something people seem to find fascinating as was evident with weeds. It also doesn't really challenge peoples beliefs. And again they can turn it off without a fuss if they don't like what they are seeing. And I don't know anything any the wire but my argument still stands about things being rated.
Edited multiple times to get everything correct. (With no response on the mean time)
Is it just me or did lifestyled just completely ignore the arguments I made and exit the conversation on grounds of jokes being made which had nothing to do with this particular article or post even though I basically said that jokes of that nature are different especially when done intentionally to a person you know had that trigger? Also, he blocked me lol.
My comment that starts with To be fair the article isn't about the internet its about college and learning. I do agree th at the professor should have offered alternate course with for anyone who did not wish to participate free such reasons. And his response to it which is immediately below it.
The author seems to just focus on writing provocatively...but he got the entire concept of trigger warnings wrong, which means that he's mad about...something that he can't even define correctly. I've been through a lot these past few months. It's hard for me to wake up in the morning, it's hard for me to get through the day, because I experienced a traumatic event this year. Of course, there are many things that make me see horrifying visions, lose sleep, dissociate, start crying, or just want to get up and leave 'normal' conversations. The thing with the anti-trigger people is that they don't understand the kind of living hell people who have been through traumatic events or have PTSD are facing. The event in itself is one thing...but the true horror is living, knowing that tomorrow you're going to think about the same things, and your life is still unalterably fucked and nothing will ever be ok like it was. Your entire world is shaken for good. It is not worth it to come to class and try to get some work done, get your mind off things, only to discover everyone's going to discuss the aesthetics or thought process of something that has happened to you. I was studying Hamlet the year I had faced another traumatic event. It was fucked up. I would sit in class and brood. And let me tell you, Hamlet, or any play, can never compare to real life anyway -- as much as literature's core function (even more than it is to be 'triggering', perhaps) is to unveil and discuss the human condition. I wondered the same thing Hamlet did: if I faced the murderer, would I take revenge? Hamlet's not left me any richer, or given me a text to relate to. I just remember it bringing up unpleasant memories a lot, and being overall quite disappointing. My point is not to degrade Hamlet because it brought up something unsavory. My point is, shoving something down somebody's throat when a) they cannot deal with simple things in life because they have been through significant trauma, and b) they are in no position to appreciate it, is clearly a pointless exercise. The advocates for no trigger warnings are mostly belligerent, forceful, and arguing for an abstract merit that literature has (ironically, not having become any more empathetic themselves) to help those 'triggered' become better human beans. Would I leave a class for something that 'triggers' me or makes me cry? I do it anyway. I have to. I can't focus if I'm emotionally overcome, no matter how great the lesson. I don't want to appreciate violence anyway. Long rant, but a lot of these issues are abstract to people who don't understand the feeling. I would love to be a whole and uncaring human again, but I can't. I've tried. That's why I don't mind 'missing out' because of a trigger warning.
and honestly, I think that the portrayal of "overcoming your fears" in most works of art is the reason people have such a distorted view of trauma and PTSD. I mean, almost any movie or game you play that has a character with a crippling fear, has that character overcome the fear through sheer force of will and the encouragement of friends. take, for example, P2: Innocent Sin. one of the main characters has a complete breakdown when witnessing a burning building because she was trapped in a shrine as a child and suffered severe burns when it caught fire. from the first time you witness this, you can tell it's absolutely crippling. she's screaming for her dead father to save her, thinks her hands are burning, all that. in the period of what can't be more than a few hours in-game, the party rushes to three other buildings that are wired to explode any second. at the third building, she is magically able to overcome her fears and run through a burning museum to save children and even jump on a suspended airplane in the middle of the fire to rescue an enemy.
obviously there's the issue of time in most works, so if they were to include the years of therapy and multiple relapses that could occur in your average handling of psychological trauma, movies would have to be six or seven hours long and games would still require multiple discs. but, to me, this seems like what causes some of this misperceptions and outright terrible ideas on how to handle trauma or triggering things. a lot of people seem to be under the belief that someone can overcome these issues if they just dive head first into their fear and really wish themselves to overcome it. that's completely at odds with reality. I have friends who still have trouble witnessing sexual violence due to being raped as a kid, even though they've been in therapy for years. granted, this theory is based solely from my ass, but I like to think it makes sense.Long rant, but a lot of these issues are abstract to people who don't understand the feeling. I would love to be a whole and uncaring human again, but I can't. I've tried. That's why I don't mind 'missing out' because of a trigger warning.
Thank you for your comment -- it's a valid perspective, definitely, because you mentioned how the media handles such content. I wanted to add to my original comment that 'triggering' scenes or things that remind me of what happened don't help as much as does literature written by people who understand the loss. So, reading Woolf helps me, particularly a book like To the Lighthouse, that is about loss, and capturing, and turning into art, a section of her life. Similarly, as I am at odds to deal with loss, I like thinking about Georges Perec's experiments with capturing what was happening around him, because the Holocaust had destablized him, and he was forced to recognize the ephemeral nature of everything, including/especially the ordinary.
That's exactly what a trigger warning is. The author would go as far as using trigger warnings. I think this is arguing that anything with a trigger warning will be removed from classrooms? That's the exact opposite of how trigger warnings work. You put trigger warnings on stuff you WILL be discussing, not stuff you WON'T be discussing. It's hard to figure out what the point of this article is. The rhetoric implies it's an article encouraging the continued diversity of university texts, even those with challenging material, and it's also angry about trigger warnings. Trigger warnings presuppose the continued diversity of university texts, even those with challenging material. No one would argue for them if we just spent 3-4 years reading See Spot Run.That professor was clearly wrong to dismiss the student, and perhaps he or she might have mentioned beforehand that there is violence and sexual assault in Ovid, but that’s as far as I’d go.
In the end, anybody can claim offense or triggering about anything: liberals about conservative politics, pacifists against violence, women against sexism, minorities against bigotry, Jews against anti-Semitism, Muslims against any mention of Israel, creationists against evolution, religionists against atheism, and so on. This ineluctably leads to a bland homogenization of all literature, and a stifling of challenging viewpoints
That's exactly what I thought! What is this guy even arguing about? His argument is worse than the idea that "trigger warnings make PTSD symptoms worse because avoidance can be a symptom of PTSD". The assumption that trigger warnings are there to ban or avoid material makes no sense, it's all about allowing them to view it and compose themselves before doing so.That's exactly what a trigger warning is. The author would go as far as using trigger warnings.
I think this is arguing that anything with a trigger warning will be removed from classrooms? That's the exact opposite of how trigger warnings work. You put trigger warnings on stuff you WILL be discussing, not stuff you WON'T be discussing.
If literature does not contain at least the potential to "trigger", then what is it really about? That is, if a piece of literature contains nothing offensive, then what does it do? Is it really literature? "Trigger" is a broad term that could mean many things. I think that if we wanted to we could find triggers for someone out there in many if not most or all classic texts. A trigger can be related to a rape, an abuse, a death, signficant trauma, emotional abuse, systemized oppression, etc - and many people do not use "trigger" to mean, as it was probably originally meant, that "Experiencing this can be destabilizing to my mental health to the extent that I may have a breakdown or other significant, non-normative, negative reactions that would be excessively detrimental to me and my mental health." Remove all possible triggers from literature, though, and I think we would get less interesting, less potent, and less able-to-form-social-commentary literature. If experiencing something or hearing about something simply upsets you, I don't think it's a trigger and I think it's a misuse of the term to cry "Trigger warning!" Some things simply are upsetting and should upset people. If an experience or topic is likely to have significant emotional/mental/physical repercussions that may destabilize one's mental state or health, or undo growth work, then I think it's fair to identify it as a trigger and try to avoid it (if you are the person with the trigger). I have experienced a lot of awful shit in my life but apparently none of it has ever given me PTSD. I have a hard time relating to some people when they discuss triggers. However, I am willing to believe they are a real and necessary thing - but I doubt they are for as many people as who say they are. And I think we talk about triggers in general/on the internet an awful lot when in reality I suspect trigger sufferers are a very small minority.
Since lifestyled has me muted I'll just call the ignorant mother fucker out here : Oh yes! I'm definitely a new hubski member! I definitely did NOT read the article and respond to its contents, which heavily implied as part of its opening paragraphs that "all potential triggers should be removed from literature" in an attempt to demonstrate that "this might be a bad thing ." NO, asshole, I don't believe that those who are honestly trying to encourage and propagate the use of trigger warnings are attempting to whitewash literature in order to ensure all are appeased. You wanna try a conspiracy theory why don't you try reading the contents of the article, to which I was (surprisingly! - yeah sorry buddy this isn't reddit and I am actually going to read a link before masturbating on about my opinion) responding? Maybe then you will see the - oh I believe it's called - context to which I was responding. Or have they not got around to teaching you what context is in eighth grade yet? Hey p.s. Mr. still-an-asshole, I'd like to add that "Censorship" = a word I not only never used but never even fucking implied in my statements regarding trigger warnings. I stand by the idea that literature devoid of all potential triggers is not literature in all. In fact, it would be better compared to soy protein: completely inoffensive and completely devoid of taste, flavor, nuance, and in short, interest. You're pissed off at the article. You're not actually pissed off at me. Go and reread some shit, you jackass. P. P.S. If you decide to 'rebut' this comment by correcting my mobile-typed spelling or grammar, you have already lost. Only a person who cannot prove their actual point resorts to correcting grammar instead. P.p.p.s. Is this when I start talking about all the times I've been raped, molested and/or harassed to prove the validity of my remark? Because fuq that.
It's funny, I just saw that lifestyled blocked me as well, but as far as I can tell I've never even addressed his comments before. I'd say he's going around the thread blocking people who dare to have a different opinion to him. Don't take it personally. If he wants an echo chamber, let him have it.
you know there's a difference between "offensive" and "graphically obscene" right? I mean, I just finished Persona 2: Innocent Sin and that game dealt with a lot of heavy shit but I never had to witness someone's head exploding in slow motion, nor did I have to read a text box that described rape down to the motion of the pubic hairs. and nobody is trying to "remove all possible triggers from literature." like, where in the fuck do you people get this conspiracy theory from? so many people seem to think that trigger warning = censorship for absolutely no reason other than to make themselves become a victim of "the PC police" and wax poetic about how "triggers might be real but you're all probably making it up anyway". jesus christ, I thought hubski was supposed to be better than reddit but it's like all the FPHers and gamergaters are just flooding this place.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if we had to start having newborns sign a consent form for living. Life is suffering, this much is true. To exist is to have pain. Some more acute than others. To consume art is to consume life. Therefore, one should expect that, at times there will be pain involved. I'm not sure a warning is needed. That said, a good professor is worth their weight in gold. Sensitivity.... Pass it on.
Trigger warnings are for pussies. Fuck off and grow up.
Not all literature should be triggering, no. I suppose all literature could be triggering though, could it not? I support labeling materials that seem likely to be offensive to some. At the same time, I don't like the idea of babying people. It's a tricky situation, I find it hard to make a clear decision one way or the other.
I don't think it's really babying to include a tiny note about how the material contains issues related to various broad topics. It's like suggesting that it's "babying" to include a note before a TV show that it contains flashing lights and might set of an epileptic seizure.
I would say a note before a video of such nature would be reasonable, which I'm totally ok with. Anything beyond reasonable (I know, subjective) I would say is babying.
I think that the US American state university has become an orgy of spending on administration, sport's facilities and coaches, and predatory loans for students. And I think that the students sense this hegemonic shift from learning to earning ... and that they are exposing exactly what the "vote your conscious with your pocketbook" develops in hidden-profit-for-learning ... and their pocketbook is going into paying for whom the bell tolls. And people with ideologies that are not inline with the students ideologies ... well mothafucker ... the bell tolls for thee.