3 ms·
I don't really see the relevance of the article. It complains a lot about students being oversensitive to bad things, but it has barely anything to do with actu
by zyxley 10y ago
I don't really see the relevance of the article. It complains a lot about students being oversensitive to bad things, but it has barely anything to do with actual trigger warnings.
Trigger warnings aren't about bending to the every whim of everyone you encounter. They're about labeling material ahead of time so that people can make a more informed decision about when and how they expose themselves to it. Nothing about this requires changing educational material; it would just mean putting some notice in the class listings and syllabus about what potentially uncomfortable topics are going to be covered in detail.
- mikeash 10y agoI think the author is saying that trigger warnings end up going beyond simply warning people of potentially objectionable content. Once you start putting in trigger warnings, it starts to look like official support for avoiding the potentially objectionable material, and students start picking and choosing what they learn while still expecting to be able to get good grades. If all you want to do is inform people about what you're going to discuss, a good syllabus will take care of it. There's no need to put in any warnings. College students should be intelligent enough to work out for themselves what topics they might not like. Much of this debate seems to center on the platonic ideal of "trigger warning" and "safe space" versus how they actually end up working with real students and real universities.
- wang_li 10y ago> informed decision about when and how they expose themselves to it. Being able to face uncomfortable ideas and events is a hallmark of an educated, resilient mind. People who never practice that resilience can hardly be considered having achieved the status that one would normally associate with a liberal university level education.