Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Ahh. A good idea in theory, but frequently misused.

[Rolepgeek]

You might want to to call them trigger warnings to link them to the existing concept of psychological triggers. But anyone who doesn't agree with you is probably just being a partisan sheep.

I understand that, but there's no need to make that link. Content warnings work exactly the same way. If someone knows they might be triggered by something, but doesn't realize they might if it's a content warning instead, then I really don't understand how their mind works.

We've had content warnings since forever. We don't need to call them trigger warnings now.

[Sheb]

Damn young people calling things with new names. Now get off my lawn!

More seriously, most of that criticism seems overblown. Trigger or content warnings don't stifle free speech. Opposing them really sound like "but, I want to be a dick to people!".

Here is a nice piece Descan shared on FB by a UChicago proffessor.

[Frumple]

Without consequence, mind. Not just wanting to be a jackass.

[Rolepgeek]

Like I said, content warnings are pretty good things to have. It's the censoring speakers you already had signed up to speak because you find out they're not progressive enough that frustrates me. Everyone deserves a voice, including the people we don't like.

[mainiac]

(literally zero reason to call them trigger warnings other than to signal tribe allegiance)

Because that's what they are called...

There is literally zero reason not to call them trigger warnings other than to signal tribe allegiance.  It's the classic "people of groups I'm not a member of are so cliquish, why is only my group neutral?"

snip

Yo dawg, if you want there to be rules about disruptions on the quad, how about there be a rule about disruptions on the quad?  But it's a real shame that UoC can't live up to the high academic standards that my undergraduate institution provided for me as my friends and I drew a giant pot leaf on our quad completely free of shouting and any other form of social justice.  Or the time that I puked on the quad and then the puke just sat there until it rained a couple days later. Everyone knows that is what college quads are supposed to be about.  They are the fucking lynchpin of the college experience.

[Rolepgeek]

No, they were not always called trigger warnings. Content warning existed before that and fulfills the same purpose, with fewer connotations of whatever-the-hell has happened to the term.

Tell me, mainiac, what group am I part of? I support Clinton, I'm a Democrat, I'm in favor of social justice. I just don't think we need to call them trigger warnings when it has become such a point of contention. I understand that Tribalism applies to me as well. That doesn't mean I'm not gonna call it out when I see it, same with racism or any other form of discrimination and stereotyping. I'm pretty sure I don't have a group, because I play Devil's Advocate at every opportunity.

[Frumple]

Like I said, content warnings are pretty good things to have. It's the censoring speakers you already had signed up to speak because you find out they're not progressive enough that frustrates me. Everyone deserves a voice, including the people we don't like.

Sure. Because that's become an endemic problem, and isn't a stance just about everyone holds.

Though yeah, everyone deserves a voice. Thing is, no one is entitled to a pulpit, particularly not a pulpit someone else owns. Which is most of what the malarkey surrounding that particular problem is about.

[Rolepgeek]

Universities are supposed to be about that, as far as I'm aware. About encouraging discourse and discussion, rather than only one side getting a pulpit.

Basically, the idea of the equal-time rule. Yeah, it's advertising and broadcast, which is why it can't be used to hammer universities that pull shit. Doesn't mean the principle shouldn't be applied.

[mainiac]

snip

Everybody has a group, dude.

I can't tell you about you but I can tell you about me ten years ago.  Ten years ago I thought that the word "gay marriage" was needlessly provocative and we shouldn't use it.  It was a useful lesson seeing how wrong I was.  When you accept the term of progress you are telling people that you value inclusion.  If people have a problem with that... well they should go find a safe space for themselves to work through their issues.

Universities are supposed to be about that, as far as I'm aware. About encouraging discourse and discussion, rather than only one side getting a pulpit.

Basically, the idea of the equal-time rule. Yeah, it's advertising and broadcast, which is why it can't be used to hammer universities that pull shit. Doesn't mean the principle shouldn't be applied.

You are arguing for an abstract principle nobody opposes.  But then what you actually call for is not an abstract principle but a somewhat specific policy.  Your abstract principle is no more incompatible with safe spaces then a rule of "dont harass people on the quad" is.

And btw, equal time is not free speech!  Equal time is actually a limitation on free speech that we have accepted as the price of avoiding corrupt politics.

[Rolepgeek]

You're correct, it is not incompatible with safe spaces.

Which is why I wasn't talking about safe spaces.

I'm also not sure how 'allow the other side to speak their piece too' is a limitation on free speech. Because you can't have the air-time they would have?

[WealthyRadish]

(literally zero reason to call them trigger warnings other than to signal tribe allegiance)

Because that's what they are called...

There is literally zero reason not to call them trigger warnings other than to signal tribe allegiance.  It's the classic "people of groups I'm not a member of are so cliquish, why is only my group neutral?"

When consciously making a change from what is currently used, the implication is that what is new is better or more accurate in some way. Changing the word from "content" to "trigger" isn't about clarity or better description, it's about an agenda (probably already rolling your eyes, but hear me out). In this case, the agenda to me seems to be about getting the word trigger into mainstream acceptance, whereas it's currently widely ridiculed. Whether the word "trigger" has a more specific meaning more free of connotation in psychology I don't know, but I do know for most people it has very strong connotations with the whole SJWs on tumblr thing, LW's crusade against purple-haired women, etc.

I don't mean agenda in a derogatory sense. Everybody has an agenda, and I'm pushing one right now by putting making this argument. The point is that I think it's reasonable to oppose the replacement of neutral and functional words with words whose connotations suggest an agenda or political alignment, regardless of the agenda or political alignment in question. It sounds trivial, but language is a powerful thing, and these sort of subtle manipulations of vocabulary are not an ethical way of supporting a position in good faith.

In this case, the position being supported is trivial and I really don't give a shit what people use, but I don't think it's right to dismiss people's objections as tribalism and pigheadedness.

[Flying Dice]

No, Rolepgeek. You say that you support free speech and then act to stifle it, but because you're a bastion of truth and justice everyone has to believe what you said. Equal rights for every person*.

*Excluding all those subhuman scum.

Especially rich to accuse people of being whiny bigots inventing problems when the problem being complained about largely consists of whiny bigots inventing problems.

Remember, the narrative is that there is no narrative.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm extremely confused now.

Was that sarcasm, or?

[mainiac]

Changing the word from "content" to "trigger"

I have good news for you!  Content warnings still exist.  I dont believe the word has grown any more or less common.  It turns out that you had exactly what you wanted all along.  Isn't that nice for you?