Trauma, Healing and Gaming Part 2: Triggers and Trigger Warnings

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
I have PTSD. I feel NO reason to be catered to. If I have reason to believe a game might set me off (which NO game has, by the way), I just don't play it. If a game were to theoretically set me off, I wouldn't blame anyone for it because I have no reason or justification to. I just would never play that game again, or else (if I liked the game otherwise) choose to play it only when I have properly steeled myself and prepared my environment for the apparently inevitable breakdown. You see, I am doing things. I need not be catered to, nor do I desire it. PTSD doesn't turn you into an entitled Tumblrite.
 

whatever55

New member
Apr 17, 2015
24
0
0
Silentpony said:
What do we do when someone is "triggered" but they don't have PTSD?
Are they just upset and that's that? I've seen trigger warnings used as shields against judgement, criticism and the like, not as a thoughtful and considerate way to help people with PTSD
you call them an asshole, that's what you do.
you don't get triggered if you don't have ptsd, triggers were a term made by mental health professionals to describe a state that can only happen to people with ptsd. specifically the ability of something to mentally take you back to a time of trauma (this can be anything a noise a sight a smell even touch, anything related to the five senses, it can literally be anything).
anyway while i agree with liana's final conclusion, that the ESRB should just normally evolve to include more specific terms that might be triggering however i disagree with her idea that such content should be "hidden" at cons behind doors and briefs.
the amount of people in the world with actual real need for trigger warnings is minimal and they are still adult fully functioning human beings. if you're going to a video game con it's likely there will be women with cleavage, gun shoot noises, gore, whatever.
you can't go to a con and not expect such things to be visible.
i fully agree that information should be made available to people so that they can know what they are getting into and decide if they should or should not enter a space however it's really up to them to do their homework before they go and know what they're getting into.
after all triggers can be anything, it's up to you to identify your own triggers and know if anything in the con can set you off.
more so i don't thing other people should be forced to go through a "there's some spooky shit behind this curtain" talk before they can see what's behind the curtain, or for there to even be a curtain.
it's up the the individual to show personal responsibility and decide what he can and cannot do, it's up to the con or the ESRB to supply him with this information when he asks for it, it's not up to the con or the ESRB to shove it down 99.9% of the populations throat when they don't need or want it.
 

GabeZhul

New member
Mar 8, 2012
699
0
0
whatever55 said:
Silentpony said:
What do we do when someone is "triggered" but they don't have PTSD?
Are they just upset and that's that? I've seen trigger warnings used as shields against judgement, criticism and the like, not as a thoughtful and considerate way to help people with PTSD
you call them an asshole, that's what you do.
you don't get triggered if you don't have ptsd, triggers were a term made by mental health professionals to describe a state that can only happen to people with ptsd. specifically the ability of something to mentally take you back to a time of trauma (this can be anything a noise a sight a smell even touch, anything related to the five senses, it can literally be anything).
*sigh*
Please read the nice and informative posts before yours before posting. They have already detailed that yes, there are other types of triggers aside of the PTSD one. None of them have anything to do with what our beloved Twitter slacktivists like to call "being triggered", but that's beside the point. Not following the actual discussion before posting only causes unnecessary friction in any thread.

Oh, and speaking of the said nice people and their nice posts: thanks guys, I love it when I can learn something new every day just by lurking on forums. :p
 

Norithics

New member
Jul 4, 2013
387
0
0
I guess there's no harm joining the chorus. I have PTSD, and my triggers exist in relation to sudden, visceral, cruel and meaningless death. Taken literally you'd think that there would be very very few games I could actually play, but one of my favorite games is Splatterhouse. This is exactly the kind of juxtaposition that your average person really cannot grip with the meager understanding that floats out there.

Splatterhouse is like a bathysphere, a space suit I can put on and drudge into the depths of the same things that upset me, and triumph over them; experience them in a dose I can handle. It's a journey through an increasingly intimidating gauntlet of cruelty, until you reach the end and get to punch the source of it right in its big melty face and it's so empowering and that's so important. I wouldn't feel the same way about a game that suddenly heaped tragedy on you that you were unable to do anything about; it's why I hated Happy Tree Friends and that whole genre of shock tactic humor.

I wouldn't want artists to compromise their visions, sometimes you really need something to happen suddenly and without warning, but there's got to be a happy medium somewhere that allows the rest of us to skip out on having a really bad day. Hm! Maybe there should be an IMDB-like database of entertainment for just this purpose?
 

WickedFire

New member
Apr 25, 2011
126
0
0
I've skimmed the thread so far, so I'm not entirely sure what's been said so far, but here's my take on the issue of triggers.

The biggest issue, is the the tumblr crowd who use 'tigger' as a catch all for anything they disagree with. Now I'm a possible bipolar with social anxiety and BPD. And most of the talk about triggers I've seen recently is stuff that would affect literally one in a million, who had the misfortune of identifying that specific image with the trauma they went through.

I have some triggers myself. Not to the point that I will turn away and quiver in fear. If I hear people arguing, that sets me off. Which makes the internet a pretty shitty place. But I don't curl into a ball and hide in a corner, I'm far more reactive. If I hear people arguing, that makes me angry. My parents weren't even argumentative. They're still together.

What I guess I'm trying to say is, maybe post a warning of certain content, if you are the OP, and your post contains discussion of a sensitive topic. Don't bother when it comes to specific posts, because if the OP is enough to cause a reliving of trauma, the replies won't be much better, and a warning on each individual post is far too much effort, no body can be arsed to list every single thing it might affect.

And tumblr can fuck right off. It has turned into a bloody circle jerk of like minds finding each other and feeding off another to believe they're important. In truth they are actually Impotent. They have degraded the entire concept of a trigger to become something essentially meaningless. It is now on a equivalence with "that makes me uncomfortable" or even "That's something I don't agree with."

I'll be honest, I have no solutions, beyond do what I do. Use the internet as a tool. Get the news you want. Contact the people you must. If a discussion appears that you feel you must weigh in on, do so. But if a discussion is essentially a circle jerk or two groups shouting at other over nothing, ignore it. Don't get invested. You'll be much happier in the long run.

I literally can't be arsed with figuring out what I was trying to say, so I'll narrow it down a TLDR:

TLDR; Triggers exist. On tumblr rarely. Don't be a dick, and the 'disagreement-triggers' have few legs to stand on.
 

Arctic Werewolf

New member
Oct 16, 2014
67
0
0
[TRIGGER WARNING: Heresy from the Inerrant Word of Our Lord and Savior Anita Christ]

Mad respect to Liana K. Quality content like this, that involves work and preparation, will help me not feel like such a chump for even clicking on this website. Which is how I came to feel a few years ago. I don't detect a trace of cynicism here and I cannot tell you how refreshing that is on a video game site.

Doesn't mean I will completely agree with it, however lol. Sorry Ms. K (it doesn't mean I don't love ya!). My 'deal' is this: good on you for including the quotes critical of the way trigger warnings are used. But when we're talking trigger warnings, that is what we're talking about. How they're used. To illustrate what I mean, let's google the phrase "trigger warning". I honestly did not know what would come up specifically when I searched (been a long time), but I knew it would be a bonanza. The first result I got was this article: [link]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/14/columbia-students-claim-greek-mythology-needs-a-trigger-warning/[/link]

Students are trying to attach a "trigger warning" to classical literature because "it contains triggering and offensive material..." So Ovid is triggering. Let's interpret that in the most generous way possible, and suppose these students simply want people "triggered" by rape content to know in advance what to expect. Alright. That brings us directly to "... and offensive material". Oh boy. Um... what does "offensive material" have to do with PTSD? Are we still talking about trigger warnings? What? Let us push on.

So Ovid's Metamorphoses "marginalizes student identities in the classroom". Um... we were talking about PTSD? Hello? What does this have to do with trigger warnings? Booey-hooey-hoo for these marginalized little buttercups and all, but what does this have to do with PTSD? Identities? Marginalized? Do "identities" suffer PTSD? So when a PTSD sufferer is triggered by seeing someone who reminds them of their violent, brutal rape, then suffers a humiliating panic attack that makes them afraid of and isolated from their peers, do they say, "OMG, I was totally marginalized today"? Again, are we even talking about PTSD anymore?

Let's have some more. "These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, [umm, PTSD?] can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background." Not included in this list? PTSD sufferers. Presumably they suffer no ill effects or they would have been mentioned.

But it gets worse (of course it does). Trigger warnings are also for preventing PTSD! PTSD brought on by rape, or the horrors of battle, or intense mental suffering? Nope. PTSD from reading the The Great Gatsby. And of course The Great Gatsby will give you PTSD, if you are "readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more". AND MORE!. Perhaps because of its "racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression". Of course, trigger warnings are all about PTSD. I cannot even begin to imagine how heterosexism differs from cissexism. They forgot to mention easily manipulatedism.

But it gets worse.
?Oberlin College has published an official document on triggers, advising faculty members to ?be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression,? to remove triggering material when it doesn?t ?directly? contribute to learning goals and ?strongly consider? developing a policy to make ?triggering material? optional,? Jarvie wrote.
Needless to say, Oberlin professors cannot do their jobs. Oberlin students are now, per official policy, ignorant nincompoops. Someone remind me, how much money does it cost to be come an ignorant brainwashed serf?

"The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought." -George Orwell

I remember the first time I saw trigger warnings. It was on a forum for depressed people. You put a "trigger warning" on your post if it contained content about self harm. This was to prevent people suffering from suicidal ideation from cutting or killing themselves. Those very lives we were trying to save are now the tools, and often the demonized enemy, of deeply cynical individuals with institutional power and totalitarian objectives. Sorry legitimate sufferers of mental illness. These people see you as grist to the mill and I'm just the messenger.

This is how most people experience trigger warnings most of the time. Do you think 'trigger warning' advocates care about PTSD sufferers? I see no sign of that whatsoever. Until I remember that Ms. Liana K. is one. But Ms. K., you are "the extreme fringe of trigger warning usage". What I'm describing is the norm. No big shock seeing the weak and vulnerable used up for cynical ends.
 

TakeyB0y2

A Mistake
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
iller3 said:
Which brings up another good question: What if..... the groups who are "triggered" but didn't serve in the military ... are effectively triggering themselves or IOW; the whole reason symptoms seem to be accelerating lately is because of hypnotic suggestion and the constant warring Social-Media-Bubble injecting conflict in a way that prevents a Cohesive online supposition? I'd love to see a study on this where the control group was people with traumatic past events who've never been exposed to either side of this Social justice culture war.
Um, no, you can experience incredibly traumatic events without serving in the military. Hell a few folks above you did states some examples of such instances.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
To make a long story short: I think most people have at least some sympathy for those who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or other afflictions which cause an extreme psychological, emotional, and/or physical reaction to certain, sometimes unpredictable, stimuli.

But there is an understandable concern that the concepts of "triggers" and "trigger warnings" are being used not to aid or protect those so afflicted, but to render certain ideas, images, and concepts difficult or impossible to broach, examine, or reference. To trivialize such concerns by implying that those who harbor them are simply lacking empathy is not a commendable approach. The value of something is not dictated only by those who find it objectionable, nor should they get the only or loudest say on the basis of their willingness to harangue others for insensitivity.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
From what I see, the opposition to trigger warnings really have nothing to do with trigger warnings, but seemingly some kind of wonderful debate tactic on tumblr to invalidate an idea because it triggered something... which doesn't really have anything to do with trigger warnings as they are constituted.

I've never once heard a major organization or leader call for triggering things to not be discussed at all. In fact, feminists talk about things like rape in detail frequently, but to other feminists who might have been raped (which is fairly frequent), it can be distressing and can trigger, so you put a warning on it as it a courtesy, so they may either avoid it or prepare themselves for it.

In short, if someone is using the concept of triggers in any other fashion, to try and criticize or invalidated someone else's views, then they're not really using trigger warnings or advocating for them. It's a different issue altogether, and trigger warnings shouldn't be criticized because some people use the concept of triggers very liberally and dubiously. Even if trigger warnings are used very liberally to describe anything which might discomforting to someone theoretically- ultimately it still has no affect on the article's content.

When it comes to the more thorny issue of triggers on things like college classes, it can seem difficult to understand why someone might feel uncomfortable with certain classes. Imagine if you're a white person taking a class with mostly black people and you go over the history of Haitian Revolution, which included amongst other things the wholesale slaughter of whites, and the black teacher talks about how it was all justified because the slaveholders in the colony were universally evil. I imagine there would likely be multiple people who might have a problem with the presentation of that class. It can ultimately be the same whether you're talking about literature which romanticizes things like rape or teachers that try to justify or glorify colonialism. Even if colonialism did provide some benefits, many of the people in the room can feel the long-lasting negative effects of slavery and colonialism today.

Ultimately it comes down to a much older debate as to how much personal opinion and "bias" should be allowed in teaching. Obviously classes shouldn't necessarily be platforms to push a single one-sided argument or history from a one-sided perspective, on the other hand discussion and conflicting ideas should also be encouraged.
 

Arctic Werewolf

New member
Oct 16, 2014
67
0
0
hentropy said:
Even if trigger warnings are used very liberally to describe anything which might discomforting to someone theoretically- ultimately it still has no affect on the article's content.
Except to disappear it, as prescribed by Oberlin University. If we're lucky, only to stigmatize it. To make it dangerous to consume. Beyond that, no effect. And I am speaking from an American perspective. Other countries don't even have free speech, even in the West. Trigger Warnings could be a pretext for totalitarian legislation or ruining peoples' lives in those countries soon. Ridiculous, right? Except they do shit like this all the time.

I might be branded a rapist now for reading Ovid's Metamorphoses. That's what trigger warnings are FOR. It's far too late for humanitarian concerns. Maybe someone should have spoken out sooner.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Arctic Werewolf said:
Except to disappear it, as prescribed by Oberlin University. If we're lucky, only to stigmatize it. To make it dangerous to consume. Beyond that, no effect. And I am speaking from an American perspective. Other countries don't even have free speech, even in the West. Trigger Warnings could be a pretext for totalitarian legislation or ruining peoples' lives in those countries soon. Ridiculous, right? Except they do shit like this all the time.

I might be branded a rapist now for reading Ovid's Metamorphoses. That's what trigger warnings are FOR. It's far too late for humanitarian concerns. Maybe someone should have spoken out sooner.
Again, even in that article, the only thing anyone was suggesting is that certain classes come with warnings, not that those classes should "disappear" altogether. Not once have I heard anyone claim that we shouldn't study Greek poetry or history or anything like that, in the article or anywhere else. An R-rating on the movie does not shame the movie or its watchers, it's only informative (even if it's still not that great as a rating system). Mountains out of molehills, slippery slope, and probably a few other fallacies in there.

What you claim they are for is your opinion, a definition that you seem to WANT to believe in the face of all other evidence. This isn't exactly thought crime here, and I've yet to hear a coherent argument against reasonable content warnings that doesn't boil down to raising the alarm about future secret totalitarian schemes, or because they got pissed off by someone on tumblr being a jerk using the word "trigger".
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
hentropy said:
Again, even in that article, the only thing anyone was suggesting is that certain classes come with warnings, not that those classes should "disappear" altogether. Not once have I heard anyone claim that we shouldn't study Greek poetry or history or anything like that, in the article or anywhere else. An R-rating on the movie does not shame the movie or its watchers, it's only informative (even if it's still not that great as a rating system). Mountains out of molehills, slippery slope, and probably a few other fallacies in there.

What you claim they are for is your opinion, a definition that you seem to WANT to believe in the face of all other evidence. This isn't exactly thought crime here, and I've yet to hear a coherent argument against reasonable content warnings that doesn't boil down to raising the alarm about future secret totalitarian schemes, or because they got pissed off by someone on tumblr being a jerk using the word "trigger".
?Triggers are not only relevant to sexual misconduct, but also to anything that might cause trauma,? the policy said. ?Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression. Realize that all forms of violence are traumatic, and that your students have lives before and outside your classroom, experiences you may not expect or understand.?

The policy said that ?anything could be a trigger,? and advised professors to ?[r]emove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals.?
(emphasis mine) -[link]https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/14/oberlin-backs-down-trigger-warnings-professors-who-teach-sensitive-material[/link]

That's not anyone's opinion; that's what the revised Oberlin code said, verbatim. Which puts any professor in the position of second-guessing themselves for fear of being challenged as to whether arbitrarily described "triggering" material can be justified as "contributing directly to course learning goals".

I will note that said policy has been tabled, as the cited article notes, but also that it was tabled specifically because of a lack of faculty input into the revised policy- which rather sounds to me like it was implemented by PR-focused administrators without much regard to the impact it would have on those who actually had to teach classes.

Scoffing this off as some tumblr-related triviality is unjustified.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Callate said:
?Triggers are not only relevant to sexual misconduct, but also to anything that might cause trauma,? the policy said. ?Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression. Realize that all forms of violence are traumatic, and that your students have lives before and outside your classroom, experiences you may not expect or understand.?

The policy said that ?anything could be a trigger,? and advised professors to ?[r]emove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals.?
(emphasis mine) -[link]https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/14/oberlin-backs-down-trigger-warnings-professors-who-teach-sensitive-material[/link]

That's not anyone's opinion; that's what the revised Oberlin code said, verbatim. Which puts any professor in the position of second-guessing themselves for fear of being challenged as to whether arbitrarily described "triggering" material can be justified as "contributing directly to course learning goals".

I will note that said policy has been tabled, as the cited article notes, but also that it was tabled specifically because of a lack of faculty input into the revised policy- which rather sounds to me like it was implemented by PR-focused administrators without much regard to the impact it would have on those who actually had to teach classes.

Scoffing this off as some tumblr-related triviality is unjustified.
I'll stop "scoffing" when others stop trying to claim that this is some kind of post-fascist plot to silence everyone who has a sexist thought.

I'm not necessarily going to defend the broadness of the proposed Oberlin policy. I will admit that the debate as to what constitutes a "trigger" is not really settled, and that trying to claim that everything can be a trigger cheapens the idea. At the same time, attributing these attitudes to malice when they can be better explained by people running with an idea a bit too much. It shouldn't be that surprising in an environment dominated by (in Oberlin's case, very liberal) ideas and beliefs.

Still, there is no censorship or unreasonable restrictions. If I'm taking a course on biology and the diversity of species for example, I don't want to start hearing racialist ideology being expressed by the professor. Not only is it not part of the coursework, but such ideas can create a negative environment for the students. As someone who felt like they had to remain silent all throughout school about religion for fear of being publicly marginalized by my own instructors, such environments can be cultivated in college as well as anywhere else, and that should be avoided in my view. Again, whether or not such things should be considered "triggers" or just sensitive topics that should be treated sensitively, is a debate worth having. It's just a shame it quickly devolves into bizarre slippery slope arguments about how everyone with problematic thoughts according to tumblr will be rounded up into reeducation camps. I wish I was straw manning/ezaggerating there, but it's become fairly clear that I am not, if internet discussion is representative of real life in any meaningful way.
 

Azure23

New member
Nov 5, 2012
361
0
0
Pretty much what I expected, a few very informative and good posts among lots of complaints about young teenagers on tumblr. (The thread, not the article, which was excellent.)

You know what would be incredibly helpful? A comprehensive study on triggers. It'd practically impossible to put together, because everyone experiences trauma differently. But god it'd be so helpful if we knew, for example, how a large group of sexual assault survivors reacted to depictions of sexual assault. I mean presumably not well, I know I don't react well, I know my wife doesn't. Such a study would have to sample a massive proportion of people who have gone through similar traumas and try to pinpoint common triggers. The entire thing would really be pointless due to how people experience and internalize trauma. It just wouldn't work.

Considering that we can't ever REALLY know for sure what people will be triggered by, why not just make some baseline assumptions and add a few more descriptors to existing rating systems? I've rarely seen "sexual violence" in the little ESRB content warning box even for games that have it. And I personally don't see how avoiding media that I don't want to consume is unhealthy behavior, I'm a happy guy, I live my life well, I got out of therapy years ago and if I don't want to see a depiction of violent rape then that's really my business isn't it? I won't comment on the Oberlin college thing, other than to say it was tabled indefinitely and for good reason. But additional descriptors to existing systems, not even trigger warnings necessarily, can only help people make informed decisions yes?

I'm also always surprised by how many people on these forums have seemingly regular dealings with these insane tumblrites, it's a blogging platform where you can carefully and minutely specify what content you want to see. And, perhaps it's just because I tend to follow comic blogs, stuff on videogames and videogame art, and survivor solidarity blogs, but I tend to see waaaaay more posts describing how to properly use the term trigger and what exactly it entails than people who claim that each and every thing is triggering them. But hey, I don't go trolling in the troll tags because I have better things to do. And I'm ALWAYS confused whenever I see people talking about how Tumblr is this SJW bastion, I mean, it's got skinheads and mra's and artists and musicians and people who just want to look at porn too. It's a free blogging platform, it's pretty much just reddit with a better user interface.

EDIT: used literally, figuratively. I am a monster.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
hentropy said:
I'll stop "scoffing" when others stop trying to claim that this is some kind of post-fascist plot to silence everyone who has a sexist thought.
Just because some sort of out-and-out conspiracy isn't in play doesn't mean there isn't a real problem worth engaging. If we ignore any concern that is subject to hyperbole in the age of the Internet, there's virtually nothing left to discuss.

I'm not necessarily going to defend the broadness of the proposed Oberlin policy. I will admit that the debate as to what constitutes a "trigger" is not really settled, and that trying to claim that everything can be a trigger cheapens the idea. At the same time, attributing these attitudes to malice when they can be better explained by people running with an idea a bit too much. It shouldn't be that surprising in an environment dominated by (in Oberlin's case, very liberal) ideas and beliefs.

Still, there is no censorship or unreasonable restrictions. If I'm taking a course on biology and the diversity of species for example, I don't want to start hearing racialist ideology being expressed by the professor. Not only is it not part of the coursework, but such ideas can create a negative environment for the students. As someone who felt like they had to remain silent all throughout school about religion for fear of being publicly marginalized by my own instructors, such environments can be cultivated in college as well as anywhere else, and that should be avoided in my view. Again, whether or not such things should be considered "triggers" or just sensitive topics that should be treated sensitively, is a debate worth having. It's just a shame it quickly devolves into bizarre slippery slope arguments about how everyone with problematic thoughts according to tumblr will be rounded up into reeducation camps. I wish I was straw manning/ezaggerating there, but it's become fairly clear that I am not, if internet discussion is representative of real life in any meaningful way.
I don't know that "malice" is the defining motive, but it's increasingly hard to credit the way some would pervert terms like "safety" or "equality" or "constructive". I do think there is, in some cases, a real desire to dictate the terms of discussion and control the acceptable narrative; a belief that not only can one change society by shifting its language and taboos, but that it is appropriate to try to do so, regardless of the desire or consent of those the system would affect.

I've had my own discomforts with the positions of some of the faculty where I earned my degree, but if you find it difficult to ascribe those who favor Oberlin's policy with malice, I find it equally difficult to imagine that there's a large number of people in academia who are waiting for an opportunity to inject racism into their biology class. What I do find entirely possible and even likely in the current climate is that a film studies class couldn't examine Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, both considered monumental works of cinema, but both shadowed by the sympathies of their creators. Or a music or theater class would have to omit The Mikado, a work that recently came under harsh scrutiny in Seattle. Or an English Literature class would skirt around The Taming of the Shrew, or The Merchant of Venice, or The Tempest.

Colleges and universities need to be able to expose their students to ideas that are new and sometimes uncomfortable if it's going to continue to be accurate to describe them as institutes of higher learning. For all that it is claimed that such treatment doesn't amount to censorship, the demand that works be omitted or defended on a case-by-case basis is not a remotely reasonable one, and cannot help but have a chilling effect on meaningful speech and discussion. There is a possibility of harming the ability of students as a whole to get a meaningful education that must not be ignored in consideration of a smaller group that professes to be offended or "triggered".

This is not to say that those of more fragile sensibilities need to be ignored. But I think making it a matter of policy to cater to them specifically is a dangerous precedent. Something like an independent student guide created by a TA might be useful, without needing to dictate or color the actual syllabus. But putting the onus on faculty to be "safe" creates an obstacle to what should be the class' primary focus: teaching.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Callate said:
Just because some sort of out-and-out conspiracy isn't in play doesn't mean there isn't a real problem worth engaging. If we ignore any concern that is subject to hyperbole in the age of the Internet, there's virtually nothing left to discuss.
Well it happened in this very thread and was the original person I was replying to, I'm not pulling it from out of the dark corners. Sometimes I think there should be like a new Godwin with the inevitability that people start comparing relatively innocuous things happening in isolated cases to an Orwellian world government.

I don't know that "malice" is the defining motive, but it's increasingly hard to credit the way some would pervert terms like "safety" or "equality" or "constructive". I do think there is, in some cases, a real desire to dictate the terms of discussion and control the acceptable narrative; a belief that not only can one change society by shifting its language and taboos, but that it is appropriate to try to do so, regardless of the desire or consent of those the system would affect.
We already know what this looks like in its purest form, because there are already numerous accredited universities such as BYU and Liberty and a list of others that DO actively control the message and punish kids for not conforming to certain religious, social, and political standards, and do so using official school rules and expelling those that don't conform. However, most people accept this as part of the American university landscape, that there are going to be colleges known for their politics and there's never been an expectation for them to be completely unbiased.

A liberal university, in Oberlin's case, one of the most liberal and progressive universities out there, does something that is much lighter, and people start losing their minds. Keep in mind that while you're complaining about the possibility of a professor getting reprimanded for discussing or showing things not vital to the coursework, there's accredited institutions teaching creationism as fact and forcing them to attend political rallies. Oberlin is, in the end, a fairly small private college, not a major public one, and if people don't like their politics or rules, then there is no end to the alternate colleges they can go to. And of course, even super-liberal Oberlin still has not actually adopted this policy.

I've had my own discomforts with the positions of some of the faculty where I earned my degree, but if you find it difficult to ascribe those who favor Oberlin's policy with malice, I find it equally difficult to imagine that there's a large number of people in academia who are waiting for an opportunity to inject racism into their biology class. What I do find entirely possible and even likely in the current climate is that a film studies class couldn't examine Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, both considered monumental works of cinema, but both shadowed by the sympathies of their creators. Or a music or theater class would have to omit The Mikado, a work that recently came under harsh scrutiny in Seattle. Or an English Literature class would skirt around The Taming of the Shrew, or The Merchant of Venice, or The Tempest.
Funny you mention those things, I talked about this issue in a different context in this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/663.875014-If-you-are-heavily-ideologically-biased-against-a-game-should-you-still-review-it?page=6#22003823]. In any case, I agree that if you're studying film or theater or any art really you have to wade through a lot of stuff that is straight-up racist by our standards, and often include themes that many people wound find offensive if done today. As a fan of classical opera, I'm even more aware of this fact than your average person.

But not once in that article or anywhere else did I hear anyone at Oberlin say these things, specifically, should not be taught in the context of artistic classes. The original complaint was that the professor wanted to talk about the beauty and romanticism of a scene depicting a rape and someone took issue with that, then the professor essentially shamed her into staying silent. There's very fertile ground for discussion when it comes to depictions of rape in art across time and cultures, but that didn't appear to be what the professor was fostering. Instead, someone who might have survived a rape was forced to analyze a depiction of it only on positive terms. Rather than saying that should not be taught, instead the person should know ahead of time they will be having to go over a detailed depiction of rape ahead of time so they can prepare or excuse themselves from the discussion.

Again, whether or not this whole thing should be discussed under the concept of triggers is a discussion worth having, but I think the "problem" has been mischaracterized.

Keep in mind that before WWII, many ideas common in Nazi ideology (doesn't count as Godwin since you brought up the Triumph of the Will first!), between extreme racism, racialism, antisemitism, eugenics, along with other things were also common in the US, among both the society at large and intellectuals and academia. The only way that changed was through a profound, progressive culture change in colleges that mirrored the repudiation of such ideas after WWII. For decades, the Triumph of the Will would never have been shown in universities, that's a relatively recent development.

Colleges and universities need to be able to expose their students to ideas that are new and sometimes uncomfortable if it's going to continue to be accurate to describe them as institutes of higher learning. For all that it is claimed that such treatment doesn't amount to censorship, the demand that works be omitted or defended on a case-by-case basis is not a remotely reasonable one, and cannot help but have a chilling effect on meaningful speech and discussion. There is a possibility of harming the ability of students as a whole to get a meaningful education that must not be ignored in consideration of a smaller group that professes to be offended or "triggered".
Again, you bring up this argument when it comes to a liberal university, but this has never been the standards by which institutes of higher learning have been judged. Programs at universities and the universities themselves only need accreditation to gain this standard, and the standard really isn't really all that high. That could be seen as a good thing, schools, especially private schools, should be able to teach what they wish to within reason without the government telling them which facts to report on. It's a sticky issue all around, but it's always been a balancing act.

This is not to say that those of more fragile sensibilities need to be ignored. But I think making it a matter of policy to cater to them specifically is a dangerous precedent. Something like an independent student guide created by a TA might be useful, without needing to dictate or color the actual syllabus. But putting the onus on faculty to be "safe" creates an obstacle to what should be the class' primary focus: teaching.
Teaching math is easy in this context, just as teaching math at a super Christian school should come mostly without controversy. The issue has always lied in how history and even literature classes should be taught, and most people would agree that there should be some standards for how those things are taught, but it's never going to be completely unbiased. The instructors are always going to put their own tinge on things. Teachers at a very liberal school being aware that their students might have very liberal feelings and interpretations of things, and might be sensitive to things that the overall populace might be less sensitive to, seems less like academic fascism and more like a rational way to run the school. Just as teachers at Liberty should probably be aware that anti-Christian rants in history class might not be welcomed with open arms, and they could certainly be reprimanded for them.