4 ms·

> except for showing a documentary about child-abuse in class without even having the basic human courtesy to warn people of the contents. I didn't get the imp

> except for showing a documentary about child-abuse in class without even having the basic human courtesy to warn people of the contents. I didn't get the impression that the author disagrees with that. I guess just mentioning the fact that it's a documentary about child rape would do the job (rather than just hitting play, which I'm pretty sure they don't do). As far as I'm concerned the article could have been written without mentioning that particular example.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I got a completely different message from that paragraph than you did. I just went back and read it again, and it seems even harsher and more callous the second time around. The author clearly disagrees that advanced warning of potentially sensitive topics is warranted, which is a strange stance to take if the plan all along was to give advance notice when the topic was incest/rape/child abuse.
- teamhappy 11y ago
  That interesting. I've read it a second time as well and I still don't get it. (Just to be clear: We're talking about the paragraph starting with "Something similar to the 'second rape' concept," right?) > The author clearly disagrees that advanced warning of potentially sensitive topics is warranted [...] Are we talking about the documentary or any class on rape law in general? I think he would disagree with warning his students any time they talk about violent crimes (presumably that comes up a lot), but not disagree with warning them when he shows a documentary that contains very graphic descriptions of such crimes.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    The key bit for me was the fact that students asked (after they'd seen the video) that they be given warnings about that kind of content. Which seems to imply that no warning was given. The rest of the paragraph seems to be the professor making the argument that giving such a warning would offend their principles in some way and that they have no intention of providing this courtesy in the future either.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

I got a completely different message from that paragraph than you did. I just went back and read it again, and it seems even harsher and more callous the second time around. The author clearly disagrees that advanced warning of potentially sensitive topics is warranted, which is a strange stance to take if the plan all along was to give advance notice when the topic was incest/rape/child abuse.

teamhappy 11y ago
That interesting. I've read it a second time as well and I still don't get it. (Just to be clear: We're talking about the paragraph starting with "Something similar to the 'second rape' concept," right?) > The author clearly disagrees that advanced warning of potentially sensitive topics is warranted [...] Are we talking about the documentary or any class on rape law in general? I think he would disagree with warning his students any time they talk about violent crimes (presumably that comes up a lot), but not disagree with warning them when he shows a documentary that contains very graphic descriptions of such crimes.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The key bit for me was the fact that students asked (after they'd seen the video) that they be given warnings about that kind of content. Which seems to imply that no warning was given. The rest of the paragraph seems to be the professor making the argument that giving such a warning would offend their principles in some way and that they have no intention of providing this courtesy in the future either.