Reelya, didn't we already have this exact same conversation?. A close friend of mine actually has PTSD that can be triggered by references to rape. You seem to throw out the word triggered and then decide afterwards whether you're using it as a meme or in its original serious meaning (which you clearly know).
We did, but if you look at the arguments
from people who support content warnings, they actually
object to the idea that it's about protecting
individuals, it's about protecting "groups", and only the pre-defined 6-7 "oppressed groups" that they approve of using the content warnings for. That's coming from one of the main proponents of them as NYU, virtually literally what they said. So they're
already being used in a way and promoted that's more about suppressing
ideas that go against an ideology rather than about protecting
people who have PTSD. The raw video is here:
https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU3hxgr2Kc
The woman actually strongly objected to the idea of defining the need for content warnings based on an individual actual needs case-by-case basis. e.g. it was brought up about stuff like car accidents or robberies and that survivors could have PTSD, and it might be appropriate to put academic content warnings on discussions of e.g. car accident fatalities for this reason. The pro-trigger warning person got
really offended and said the "other side" is "co-opting" the idea of trigger warnings which are only "meant" to be "for" the "oppressed groups". However, the "other side" here is 100% composed of liberal leftwing college professors who merely wanted to extend the concept of trigger warnings in a self-consistent way that protects
all students based on individual need. Since they didn't do it right, they are labeled the "them" in the "us vs them" system.
It's an issue of semantics here. "trigger warning" in the current campus usage is
not used to mean "protect people with PTSD", it's used to supress opinions related to a pre-selected ideological stance based on privilege theory. e.g. if a straight white male has PTSD and asks for a trigger warning for imagery that could harm them, well
you've been told that that's not appropriate to ask for because content warnings are for the "oppressed groups" to combat "systemic bias", and do you see your group on
the list? I sure don't. Protecting the rights of that specific individual would be co-opting the system.
This is what academics such as Jonothan Haidt, who
comes from a liberal left background are saying is going on. The wording "trigger warning" or "safe space" are not used the way you think they are used. e.g. if a teacher teachs the actual science about gender differences, you can get a student complaint. Because you failed to provide a "safe space" where people who have the ideological viewpoint of "no gender differences" can feel free from having to confront the scientific evidence which might challenge their belief system. The "trigger" here is that their ideas were challenged by acknowleding the existence of alternative ideas. It's not about individuals
at all, it's about pushing a specific post-modern/post-structuralist ideology into other fields by using punitive mechanisms to punish lecturers who step event 1 inch outside the orthodox ideology. I couldn't give a fuck about milo or ann coulter not being able to talk on campus, that's only the view point
from the right that makes that the big deal. the real insidious big deal is that otherwise left-wing and liberal college professors are now self-censoring actual course content just in case it freaks out some nutjob postmodernist victimhood culture ideologue that's sitting in the class. And by that, you create a generation of liberals
less capable of actually debating reality and coming up with viable solutions. It turns into an echo-chamber controlled by only the loudest and most obnoxious 19 year old "radicals".
Also, alway, there's no fucking way I'm even a little bit "alt-right". The "with us or against us" tendency you're displaying is actually a bit scary. How ... is labeling
every person who's skeptical of your minority ideology an "alt-right" any different at all than the traditional thing of calling anyone who questions American greatness a "communist". Saying anyone who question safe-spaces or trigger warnings is against suffering people with PTSD is effectively an argument on the level of labeling dissidents as "against freedom" or pulling out a "think of the children" argument.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4454576 times)