7 ms·

I think this is an important discussion to be had. The question of whether ideas like "trigger warnings" should be implemented in academia have good arguments o

by yzzxy 12y ago

I think this is an important discussion to be had. The question of whether ideas like "trigger warnings" should be implemented in academia have good arguments on both sides. On a few of these issues I'm not sure where I stand yet and I'm very interested in hearing intelligent discourse from both sides over the next few years. However, I don't think this is a particularly good article on the topic. It's riddled with character assassinations and complaints that fall low on the oft-cited-by-HN Graham hierarchy of argument[0]. Ironically this comment falls nearly as low because of what it is making reference to, but that's an existential issue for another day. The author's writing paints "Stepford students" in a herdlike way, and many paragraphs open with imagery taking shots at their character. I generally love a bit of prose in an op-ed or news article, though I seem to disagree with a lot of HN readers there. But I think casual, drive-by insults are a bad idea when you're trying to point out something like group hypocrisy or make legitimate criticisms of a social movement. [0] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27...

chrismcb 12y ago
What are the good arguments FOR "trigger warnings?"
- gpcz 12y ago
  My understanding based on reading the Geek Feminism Wiki [1] is that the author misrepresented trigger warnings as a signal that something might be offensive when rather they are actually meant to give people a warning that content may re-open deep psychological wounds (such as a PTSD flashback from abuse, urges to self-harm, etc). [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning
  - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
    "Trigger warning" and "safe space" are two terms that have sensible, specific definitions, but in practice are very frequently used in an informal, overly expansive way that renders them ridiculous.
    - millstone 12y ago
      Right, so it's a matter of degree. A "trigger warning" policy may be sensible in some form, but can be taken too far. Oberlin College's infamous policy [1] (now tabled) shows this dynamic at its worst, warning faculty that "anything could be a trigger" and encouraging them to "remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals." Such a policy pressures faculty into avoiding controversial subjects altogether, and gives students a lever to remove content they would rather not see taught. Happily this policy has since been revised, showing that faculty can successfully fight to maintain their academic autonomy. 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20131222174936/http:/new.oberlin.edu/office/equity-concerns/sexual-offense-resource-guide/prevention-support-education/support-resources-for-faculty.dot http://web.archive.org/web/20131222174936/http:/new.oberlin....
  - tzs 12y ago
    The intention may be good, but in practice trigger warnings probably do more harm than good to the very people they are meant to help. See the long discussion at the end of this article [1] with an expert on treating trauma survivors for details. An interesting quote from him: The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That’s not good. Exposure to trauma reminders provides an opportunity to gain control over them. This is the essence of the treatment that we are using to help trauma survivors. It involves encouraging the patient not to avoid reminders of trauma, but in fact to make a point of exposing themselves to reminders of trauma so that they can develop a tolerance. I liken it to a vaccination. You get a small dose of the virus so that the body can develop immunity towards it. Psychologically it’s the same phenomenon. Here's another article that discusses five studies relevant to trigger warnings [2]. A couple interesting quotes: Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. and Many women who have experienced sexual assault reject the label victim in favor of survivor. But although the latter term connotes empowering agency, having trauma become central to one’s identity bodes poorly for one’s mental health. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11106670/Trigger-warnings-more-harm-than-good.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11106670/Trigger-wa... [2] http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/hazards-ahead-problem-trigger-warnings-according-research-81946/ http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/hazards-...
    - gpcz 12y ago
      Assuming that exposure is indeed the best way to treat PTSD, there is still the ethical matter of patient consent to consider. In the second linked article, the patient is exposed to the triggering content with full consent in a controlled clinical environment, but the recommendation in the first article is completely uncontrolled and could lead to adverse reactions away from a completely safe place. While I agree with Basoglu's assertion that there are too many possible triggers to warn everyone of everything, there are some common ones that we can warn about.
    - 12y ago
  - scotty79 12y ago
    Just extend PG rating and be done with it. I once had severe trauma after I started reading comments on polish equivalent of yahoo. I was struck by existential fear after confronted with sheer stupidity of people's opinions and their own reports if how they fscked up their life. That was shock at least on par with seeing pornography for the first time. I consider it to be formative experience.
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  > What are the good arguments FOR "trigger warnings?" If you've ever seen a rape survivor having a PTSD-induced breakdown, you consider it polite to avoid causing that when practical.
  - kryps 12y ago
    So we won't have a public debate about war anymore because it might cause a PTSD-induced breakdown in veterans?
    - gpcz 12y ago
      We'd still have the debate, but if we know in advance that we're going to show or describe the horrors of war in graphic detail, we'd warn the veterans in the audience beforehand. Trigger warnings aren't censorship, they're common courtesy.
      - MrDom 12y ago
        How long before the trigger warning itself triggers the very behavior they're trying to warn about?
      - Paradigma11 12y ago
        So i am not courteous and now what?
    - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
      Are you not paying attention? Trigger warnings are how you can have public debate without triggering people.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  We impose limitations on Free Speech for libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. (This incomplete list scraped from Wikipedia). The means by which we decide these exceptions are by applying the principle of harm and the principle of offense, so named by John Stewart Mill. Specifically, we determine whether the speech actively causes, or is likely to cause, actual harm or whether it merely only has the capability to, but may not, cause harm. On one side proponents will suggest that 'trigger warning' discussions are merely offensive to those who may possibly but will not necessarily be harmed - they are offensive but not harmful and this then is not enough to limit it as speech. Furthermore ample forewarning can be given to limit the exposure of someone sensitive to what is going to be spoken and a choice can be made in advance by someone who is sensitive to possible trigger warnings to participate. On the other side, arguments can be made that (A.) exclusion from the debate based on the possible presence of trigger warnings legitimizes a paternalism because victims can not then show up to the debates (B.) the size of the class of potential victims and the scope of some discussions make it inevitable that harm will be done to someone or (C.) that the affects of open discussion on certain topics themselves have societal affects that cause harm as they institutionalize harmful norms (there are many examples from history). There are topics and scenarios that exist on the boundary between the principle of harm and the principle of offense. Good arguments can fit these issues squarely into one or the other.
  - angersock 12y ago
    What is done and what is right are not identical sets. Most of those ways that we restrict free speech, for example, don't actually hurt anyone. The "fire in a crowded theater" is usually taken out of historical context, where it was being used for authoritarian purposes.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Most? It seems to me that there are a couple where it's arguable. I'm curious which ones you think don't cause harm to others and why it is you think they do not.
kristofferR 12y ago
I see what you're saying, but I don't see how it could have been done differently. How can you discuss/complain about problematic behavior without mentioning some examples of the behavior in question?
- yzzxy 12y ago
  Discuss what is wrong with the arguments behind their behaviors, rather than harping on personality traits the author finds annoying. Many of the character traits the author mentions are not part of the messages of the political groups he is complaining about, but serve only to emphasize his opinion "Stepford students" as a whole are brain-dead and conformist. There's definitely good criticisms of arguably (and in my opinion) bad behavior in this article, but it falls a little flat when the author can't restrain himself from tossing out petty insults whenever he's leading into a point.
thenmar 12y ago
Agreed. Just read the first paragraph. But their student brains have been replaced by brains bereft of critical faculties and programmed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned youth, but anyone who’s spent more than five minutes in their company will know that these students are far more interested in shutting debate down than opening it up. This base-shoring piece ironically panders to people who've already made up their mind and are uninterested in engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion. You can't possibly write something like that and expect to convince anyone that you're arguing in good faith.
panarky 12y ago
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1357/ http://xkcd.com/1357/

by yzzxy 12y ago

chrismcb 12y ago

What are the good arguments FOR "trigger warnings?"

gpcz 12y ago
My understanding based on reading the Geek Feminism Wiki [1] is that the author misrepresented trigger warnings as a signal that something might be offensive when rather they are actually meant to give people a warning that content may re-open deep psychological wounds (such as a PTSD flashback from abuse, urges to self-harm, etc). [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Trigger_warning
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  "Trigger warning" and "safe space" are two terms that have sensible, specific definitions, but in practice are very frequently used in an informal, overly expansive way that renders them ridiculous.
  - millstone 12y ago
    Right, so it's a matter of degree. A "trigger warning" policy may be sensible in some form, but can be taken too far. Oberlin College's infamous policy [1] (now tabled) shows this dynamic at its worst, warning faculty that "anything could be a trigger" and encouraging them to "remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals." Such a policy pressures faculty into avoiding controversial subjects altogether, and gives students a lever to remove content they would rather not see taught. Happily this policy has since been revised, showing that faculty can successfully fight to maintain their academic autonomy. 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20131222174936/http:/new.oberlin.edu/office/equity-concerns/sexual-offense-resource-guide/prevention-support-education/support-resources-for-faculty.dot http://web.archive.org/web/20131222174936/http:/new.oberlin....
- tzs 12y ago
  The intention may be good, but in practice trigger warnings probably do more harm than good to the very people they are meant to help. See the long discussion at the end of this article [1] with an expert on treating trauma survivors for details. An interesting quote from him: The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That’s not good. Exposure to trauma reminders provides an opportunity to gain control over them. This is the essence of the treatment that we are using to help trauma survivors. It involves encouraging the patient not to avoid reminders of trauma, but in fact to make a point of exposing themselves to reminders of trauma so that they can develop a tolerance. I liken it to a vaccination. You get a small dose of the virus so that the body can develop immunity towards it. Psychologically it’s the same phenomenon. Here's another article that discusses five studies relevant to trigger warnings [2]. A couple interesting quotes: Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. and Many women who have experienced sexual assault reject the label victim in favor of survivor. But although the latter term connotes empowering agency, having trauma become central to one’s identity bodes poorly for one’s mental health. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11106670/Trigger-warnings-more-harm-than-good.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11106670/Trigger-wa... [2] http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/hazards-ahead-problem-trigger-warnings-according-research-81946/ http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/hazards-...
  - gpcz 12y ago
    Assuming that exposure is indeed the best way to treat PTSD, there is still the ethical matter of patient consent to consider. In the second linked article, the patient is exposed to the triggering content with full consent in a controlled clinical environment, but the recommendation in the first article is completely uncontrolled and could lead to adverse reactions away from a completely safe place. While I agree with Basoglu's assertion that there are too many possible triggers to warn everyone of everything, there are some common ones that we can warn about.
  - 12y ago
- scotty79 12y ago
  Just extend PG rating and be done with it. I once had severe trauma after I started reading comments on polish equivalent of yahoo. I was struck by existential fear after confronted with sheer stupidity of people's opinions and their own reports if how they fscked up their life. That was shock at least on par with seeing pornography for the first time. I consider it to be formative experience.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
> What are the good arguments FOR "trigger warnings?" If you've ever seen a rape survivor having a PTSD-induced breakdown, you consider it polite to avoid causing that when practical.
- kryps 12y ago
  So we won't have a public debate about war anymore because it might cause a PTSD-induced breakdown in veterans?
  - gpcz 12y ago
    We'd still have the debate, but if we know in advance that we're going to show or describe the horrors of war in graphic detail, we'd warn the veterans in the audience beforehand. Trigger warnings aren't censorship, they're common courtesy.
    - MrDom 12y ago
      How long before the trigger warning itself triggers the very behavior they're trying to warn about?
    - Paradigma11 12y ago
      So i am not courteous and now what?
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    Are you not paying attention? Trigger warnings are how you can have public debate without triggering people.
xnull2guest 12y ago
We impose limitations on Free Speech for libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. (This incomplete list scraped from Wikipedia). The means by which we decide these exceptions are by applying the principle of harm and the principle of offense, so named by John Stewart Mill. Specifically, we determine whether the speech actively causes, or is likely to cause, actual harm or whether it merely only has the capability to, but may not, cause harm. On one side proponents will suggest that 'trigger warning' discussions are merely offensive to those who may possibly but will not necessarily be harmed - they are offensive but not harmful and this then is not enough to limit it as speech. Furthermore ample forewarning can be given to limit the exposure of someone sensitive to what is going to be spoken and a choice can be made in advance by someone who is sensitive to possible trigger warnings to participate. On the other side, arguments can be made that (A.) exclusion from the debate based on the possible presence of trigger warnings legitimizes a paternalism because victims can not then show up to the debates (B.) the size of the class of potential victims and the scope of some discussions make it inevitable that harm will be done to someone or (C.) that the affects of open discussion on certain topics themselves have societal affects that cause harm as they institutionalize harmful norms (there are many examples from history). There are topics and scenarios that exist on the boundary between the principle of harm and the principle of offense. Good arguments can fit these issues squarely into one or the other.
- angersock 12y ago
  What is done and what is right are not identical sets. Most of those ways that we restrict free speech, for example, don't actually hurt anyone. The "fire in a crowded theater" is usually taken out of historical context, where it was being used for authoritarian purposes.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Most? It seems to me that there are a couple where it's arguable. I'm curious which ones you think don't cause harm to others and why it is you think they do not.

kristofferR 12y ago

I see what you're saying, but I don't see how it could have been done differently. How can you discuss/complain about problematic behavior without mentioning some examples of the behavior in question?

yzzxy 12y ago
Discuss what is wrong with the arguments behind their behaviors, rather than harping on personality traits the author finds annoying. Many of the character traits the author mentions are not part of the messages of the political groups he is complaining about, but serve only to emphasize his opinion "Stepford students" as a whole are brain-dead and conformist. There's definitely good criticisms of arguably (and in my opinion) bad behavior in this article, but it falls a little flat when the author can't restrain himself from tossing out petty insults whenever he's leading into a point.

thenmar 12y ago

Agreed. Just read the first paragraph. But their student brains have been replaced by brains bereft of critical faculties and programmed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned youth, but anyone who’s spent more than five minutes in their company will know that these students are far more interested in shutting debate down than opening it up. This base-shoring piece ironically panders to people who've already made up their mind and are uninterested in engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion. You can't possibly write something like that and expect to convince anyone that you're arguing in good faith.

panarky 12y ago

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1357/ http://xkcd.com/1357/