5 ms·

Why didn't he and his fellows advocate for "trigger warnings" then? Perhaps a greater sense of personal responsibility? I'm honestly curious.

sp332 10y ago
What makes you think they didn't? Just politely ask people around you not to make ridiculously loud noises without warning. It probably didn't occur to them to come up with a funny name for it because it's a very natural and sensible thing to do.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Asking is a quite different than what is being demanded by people today. People who advocate for 'trigger warnings' want it enforced by law as far as I understand. My question is still unanswered, what changed?
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. They want people they interact with to be polite enough to take their needs into consideration. That's it. If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and look after yourself"?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      >No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. So you believe that 'trigger warning' advocates support the University of Chicago decision then, by not having a formal rule in place in regards to them? >If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and look after yourself"? Depends, a friend in a one on one conversation. Sure but I might find the person difficult to talk to as I have to be on eggshells all the time. If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        > So you believe that 'trigger warning' advocates support the University of Chicago decision then, by not having a formal rule in place in regards to them? Policy isn't law, by definition. "Hey, we'd really like our employees to be relatively tactful when they bring up things that are very likely to upset some of our students due to their experiences" wouldn't be very hard to say.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        "we'd really like" is a different thing than "You will be terminated if". The first probably achieves nothing and the second is a form of censorship.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        > Depends, a friend in a one on one conversation. Sure but I might find the person difficult to talk to as I have to be on eggshells all the time. Honestly... if you're talking about rape and slavery on a regular basis in casual conversation, you live in a completely different world from mine. I try and keep my friends' preferences in mind while around them - remembering that they don't like talking about certain things is as easy as remembering their hobbies, jobs, or how much milk and sugar they take in their tea, to me. > If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship. Funnily enough, I was at the Edinburgh Fringe this month, and made a special attempt to find comedians and acts who I disagreed with strongly. Result? That was really difficult to find - I had more to discuss with the liberal types than anyone who was explicitly trying to be "edgy" or "not PC". Comedians have mostly bought into the "punching up vs punching down" thing as much as anyone else. Turns out it usually makes for better jokes.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I talk about history with my friends often, history is full of violence. To not be able to talk about violence candidly basically means you don't discuss history/geopolitics at all. I'm just not a 'how the weather' kind of guy, so our interactions might look different.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. That's strictly true but somewhat misdirecting, as much of the controversy arises when they do want it mandated by authority with formal consequences for violations, just that the authorities that they are lobbying are usually not legislators making law.
rsync 10y ago
I quote Martin "Marty" Hart from season 1 of "True Detective": "there was a time when a man kept his bullshit to himself"
bbctol 10y ago
Because they'd get sent to an asylum. Because you had to keep all mental issues to yourself, lest you be seen as weak and shut out of normal society. Because it really, really, really sucked to be a victim of trauma for most of history. It's not like people were so much stronger back then that no women complained about the normalization of sexual assault, it's that those that did were forcibly silenced. It's not that mental health issues didn't exist, they were just quickly swept under the rug.

sp332 10y ago

What makes you think they didn't? Just politely ask people around you not to make ridiculously loud noises without warning. It probably didn't occur to them to come up with a funny name for it because it's a very natural and sensible thing to do.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Asking is a quite different than what is being demanded by people today. People who advocate for 'trigger warnings' want it enforced by law as far as I understand. My question is still unanswered, what changed?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. They want people they interact with to be polite enough to take their needs into consideration. That's it. If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and look after yourself"?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. So you believe that 'trigger warning' advocates support the University of Chicago decision then, by not having a formal rule in place in regards to them? >If a friend asked you, "please don't talk about rape or slavery around me (in cases that you really need to) without giving me an opportunity to collect myself", would you say "sure thing, I'll try and keep that in mind" or "no, fuck off and look after yourself"? Depends, a friend in a one on one conversation. Sure but I might find the person difficult to talk to as I have to be on eggshells all the time. If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      > So you believe that 'trigger warning' advocates support the University of Chicago decision then, by not having a formal rule in place in regards to them? Policy isn't law, by definition. "Hey, we'd really like our employees to be relatively tactful when they bring up things that are very likely to upset some of our students due to their experiences" wouldn't be very hard to say.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        "we'd really like" is a different thing than "You will be terminated if". The first probably achieves nothing and the second is a form of censorship.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      > Depends, a friend in a one on one conversation. Sure but I might find the person difficult to talk to as I have to be on eggshells all the time. Honestly... if you're talking about rape and slavery on a regular basis in casual conversation, you live in a completely different world from mine. I try and keep my friends' preferences in mind while around them - remembering that they don't like talking about certain things is as easy as remembering their hobbies, jobs, or how much milk and sugar they take in their tea, to me. > If I was doing a stand up comedy act? I'd tell them to fuck off because that is tantamount to censorship. Funnily enough, I was at the Edinburgh Fringe this month, and made a special attempt to find comedians and acts who I disagreed with strongly. Result? That was really difficult to find - I had more to discuss with the liberal types than anyone who was explicitly trying to be "edgy" or "not PC". Comedians have mostly bought into the "punching up vs punching down" thing as much as anyone else. Turns out it usually makes for better jokes.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        I talk about history with my friends often, history is full of violence. To not be able to talk about violence candidly basically means you don't discuss history/geopolitics at all. I'm just not a 'how the weather' kind of guy, so our interactions might look different.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > No, people who ask for trigger warnings don't want it enforced by law. That's strictly true but somewhat misdirecting, as much of the controversy arises when they do want it mandated by authority with formal consequences for violations, just that the authorities that they are lobbying are usually not legislators making law.

rsync 10y ago

I quote Martin "Marty" Hart from season 1 of "True Detective": "there was a time when a man kept his bullshit to himself"

bbctol 10y ago

Because they'd get sent to an asylum. Because you had to keep all mental issues to yourself, lest you be seen as weak and shut out of normal society. Because it really, really, really sucked to be a victim of trauma for most of history. It's not like people were so much stronger back then that no women complained about the normalization of sexual assault, it's that those that did were forcibly silenced. It's not that mental health issues didn't exist, they were just quickly swept under the rug.