|
rudatron posted:Why jujitsu? Also mandatory boxing sounds like a bad idea considering stuff like concussion and brain injury/risk of Alzheimers. If everyone's on their third concussion they won't mind DR's terrible trolling! Hiyooooo!
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
Gonna address some older points for a secSilver2195 posted:At state schools, it very much does apply. That's a fair point, but I feel like bringing this into the realm of constitutional law muddies the waters hella hard. Silver2195 posted:I think almost all posters here will agree that professors are quite right to do so. This is a separate question from in what particular cases they should do so, and whether universities should require professors to do so. Very well, edited the OP. In addition to having a really good post, this article echos my thoughts on the matter. quote:Even taking these bits of evidence at their strongest and considering every source’s sources, so far the evidence from within The Atlantic’s reporting on PC culture within campuses yields data points from eight known American colleges and universities, one anonymous university, twelve professors, two researchers, three comedians, and one blog. No first hand interviews or viewpoints from actual students. There are over 4,700 degree-granting institutions, almost two million post-secondary professors, and 21 million enrolled students in the United States. These sources hardly form enough to decide to pursue a question, let alone form a broad cultural commentary, and further still show that these things actually impact campus life and policy in a meaningful way. Is this really a statistically significant issue? We're talking about a handful of "incidents" across the entire country. By all statistical metrics, those are outliers. I'm not gonna say this article answers point 3 in my OP, per my own rules, but this is a train of thought that leads me to doubt this belief. --- Alright, onto the present rudatron posted:tolerating contrarianism Oooo that's a good way of putting it! I agree with your post completely too. It's a court of ideas, but they have to be valid ideas. Or at the very least, they need to seem plausibly valid due to the speaker's experience. Who What Now posted:The way DR talks about it he's very clearly saying that it's either unique to them or significantly more prevalent in them. Otherwise there's no reason to have brought it up in the first place. There is, he wanted to follow it up with "so you see virtue signalling..." and so on
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Okay, so when college students protest against a speaker they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. When college students go to see a speaker they think they like, they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. When student leaders select speakers to come visit, they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. When speakers sign with agents to go speak on college campuses, they're just virtue signalling to adjust their belief system to fit into their peer group. rudatron posted:Why jujitsu? Also mandatory boxing sounds like a bad idea considering stuff like concussion and brain injury/risk of Alzheimers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IMO, one of the things that students need to learn in order to prepare them for life in the adult world is how to have a respectful discussion with people that they fundamentally disagree with. Students are going to encounter people who think that their identities, opinions, and views are ridiculous or contemptible, and they are going to have to find a way to productively work with them that doesn't involve shouting them down or trying to shame them, because that isn't always going to be an option. I'd appreciate your take on a hypothetical. Take an ordinary freshman chemistry class. The professor wants to demonstrate the difference between burning a small balloon filled with pure hydrogen, and one filled with a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. The pure-hydrogen balloon will pop in a nice little ball of flame, while the stoichiometric mixture will of course give off a loud and surprising but harmless bang. In the lecture hall are a handful of GI bill students who have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are very surprised by the loud noise, and are visibly distraught for the rest of the lecture. After class, they ask the professor to please give them a heads up if anything like that is going to happen in a lab demo again. Do you believe that the professor should taunt them publicly, or do you think it's better to mock them in private for their inability to face the real world?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Literal, actual explosions are neither a belief nor a topic*, and are at best tertiary to the content of the class**, and for that reason among others, your hypothetical isn't relevant to the OP's support of further constraining allowable speech and expression on campus, and the subsequent discussion we've been having about it. *I mean, I guess they could be a pretty awesome set of beliefs, if your freshman chemistry seminar is taught by Mr. Torgue. **again, unless your class is awesome Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
I find it really difficult to understand why people are so resistant to the concept of trigger warnings. Boiled down, it's really just basic loving courtesy and politeness. Like, say you had a buddy going through a rough divorce or something, and he asked you not to bring it up. You would't go gently caress YOU DON'T CENSOR ME SO YOUR EX IS SINGLE NOW HUH? But the idea that maybe a student that's been through some heavy poo poo would like a warning before said poo poo is brought up? Oh no, that's crossing a line, can't have that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
The issue of trigger warnings is that they are getting misused and extended into areas where it is excessive. I was taught a trigger warning was for veterans of wars with PTSD, who have a serious psychological issue. A trigger warning for racism or sensitive discussions about gender is not 'triggering' PTSD in people, and the fact that someone could be upset about alternative points of view on a topic like that does not mean a trigger warning is needed. There are legitamate arguments to be had about things like the extent of racism, and how to combat it, since stuff like diversity training is a joke: https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work There are a ton of disputes about the 'rape epidemic', mostly stemming from how the studies were done and the criterea for their findings, as well as disputes about how to best deal with people with gender dysmorphia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The issue of trigger warnings is that they are getting misused and extended into areas where it is excessive. How often do trigger warnings actually get misused in academia, though? Like, it's obviously gone wild among tumblerites, but is it common enough to be a real problem on campus?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Literal, actual explosions are neither a belief nor a topic*, and are at best tertiary to the content of the class**, and for that reason among others, your hypothetical isn't relevant to the OP's support of further constraining allowable speech and expression on campus, and the subsequent discussion we've been having about it. Stoichiometry is a perfectly valid topic to discuss in an intro chem class, and that demonstration is a classic way to drive the point home with a bang, and provide a bit of entertainment for somebody who is otherwise stuck walking kids through a lecture on electron orbitals yet again. It'll probably happen thousands of times across the country over the next few months. But, for some small segment of the population, it's also enough to send them into the "emotional tailspin" you think is so ridiculous. Asking a professor for a "trigger warning" for loud noises is just as ridiculous, or just as non-ridiculous, as asking for a "trigger warning" for discussion of sexual assault, or suicide, or whatever else might cause people to drop from a reasoned academic discussion into a fight-or-flight adrenaline response linked to traumatic memories. And, if it's not unreasonable for students to ask for that kind of accommodation, it's probably not unreasonable to call out specific things at an institutional level which are most likely to have that impact on students, and ask professors to call them out in their syllabi. Yes, to some extent, that's compelled speech - but so's the existence of a syllabus and reading list in the first place. For some reason people don't seem to have a huge issue with that particular tyranny. Pharohman777 posted:The issue of trigger warnings is that they are getting misused and extended into areas where it is excessive. Can you provide a single example of someone in an influential academic position who has called for trigger warnings on "alternative points of view" rather than on subjects which are likely to, y'know, trigger some kind of post-traumatic stress?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:More that I find it extremely unlikely that student protests against a speaker prior to them actually speaking are based on a deep understanding and well thought-out rejection of a speaker's beliefs rather than a superficial judgement about the speaker's identity or desire to be a part of a group or movement. I am almost positive this is concern trolling, but okay I'll bite. If a speaker acts in a way which makes him instantly reprehensible in a few sentences, I feel like the onus is on the speaker to make themselves more appealing to the students. If Milo can't keep stop himself from running his dipshit mouth, I fail to understand how it's the students' fault for disliking him. If speakers cannot express their points without making an rear end of themselves, that's their problem. At that point, they are not contributing their ideas to the conversation and why should the students try to meet them halfway if they do not make the effort to do so? Milo's "blacks kill blacks, cops are innocent" and "rape really isn't that big of a deal" stances qualify, btw. To borrow a phrase you no doubt like, why should students try to understand what special snowflakes these people are? And I don't mean conservatives in general, I mean speakers who were explicitly banned like Milo. Speakers who contribute very little to the court of ideas, but sow disorder everywhere they go. And I'm arguing while assuming your point is true, which I doubt it is and I doubt you're making it in good faith. And do you know why I think that, DR? It's because I know you're a smart guy and I know you can read between the lines. Assholes like Milo like to cry wolf about censorship, but that's because they are well-versed in public dialogue. It's easy to say "you're censored" it's harder to say "no we don't want to listen to him because he's an rear end in a top hat who regurgitates far-right beliefs couched as dogwhistles" You know what he does, I know what he does and you can bet your bottom dollar that the average student, in a college loving campus, sure as poo poo does too. These are post-secondary institutions, and I know everyone has their biases and mental blocks, but there isn't a place more open-minded than that. The fact that people are getting banned from those places, speak to what kind of people they are and what views they hold. Students are not stupid people. They can tell when they're being lied to, when they're being talked down too and when a person is being disingenuous. If they have any biases due to being part of a group, it's usually one that's shared by a large portion of society as well (Like the "Hillary is a liar" thing). Pharohman777 posted:There are a ton of disputes about the 'rape epidemic', mostly stemming from how the studies were done and the criterea for their findings, as well as disputes about how to best deal with people with gender dysmorphia. hey know what conversation we're not gonna have in this thread?? SSNeoman posted:BTW, we're not gonna have a debate about rape statistics in this thread. For now, assume the poo poo written on here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=243011
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:virtue signaling This is a meaningless phrase which can be applied to all moral speech. You yourself are in a social setting, saying what you think would be good. There is no way you can prove this is not motivated by a desire to associate with people who say the same, but a person who made that accusation would obviously just be trying to delegitimize your ideas without engaging with them substantively. rudatron posted:The whole idea of the marketplace of ideas isn't to give any special consideration to contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism, so doing things like seeking out people for the sake of 'balance' is not good. The views expressed must have value in and of themselves to be worth thinking about. And honestly, I don't think Milo has any actual creativity or intelligence between those ears of his, he is an empty vessel with a pretty face, that doesn't like women. That's it. That's not to say that it would be impossible to invite anyone opposed to feminism to speak, even invite them to university a strong feminist tradition, but the people they invite must have some meaningful insight. I agree with your assessment of Milo (except maybe his face), but the objections seem to come from people who disagree. Folks have seen speakers or professors that they think offered substantive challenges, but which others dismissed as ignorant poo poo-stirring. Disagreements like that are inevitable. Luckily universities can make, express, and be held responsible for their own assessment of a speaker, and students can disagree. Arthur Crackpot posted:But the idea that maybe a student that's been through some heavy poo poo would like a warning before said poo poo is brought up? Oh no, that's crossing a line, can't have that. Students are low status, especially if they have anxieties or trauma. If I expressed empathy to them, it would lower my own status.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:. Incest is rare, the idea of a trigger warning for it is absurd. This is from a few pages back, but it's something else you're wrong about and shouldn't be allowed to slide. Incest ain't rare. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/america-has-an-incest-problem/272459/
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Arthur Crackpot posted:How often do trigger warnings actually get misused in academia, though? Like, it's obviously gone wild among tumblerites, but is it common enough to be a real problem on campus? As the Trigglypuff clip showed, Tumblrites do attend centres of higher education, to the smugness of the former and the enormous detriment of the latter. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trigger warnings when it comes to the meatier stuff of life (Rape, irl gore, stuff that people actually get PTSD from) but my main worry is that the entire concept - both in view of academia and the general public - is going to be increasingly skewed in favour of the hypersensitive at the expense of the people whom trigger warnings were conceived to benefit. A good rule of thumb I've found is the public index: What would you say to your friends about something or someone in public? I'd gladly talk openly about a regime being sexist or racist, but things like 'I hear the leader fucks his sister, Caligula-style' or 'Did you see the pictures of what he did to that kid? Because it looks like he cut out his kidneys, viscera everywhere.' would be heavily restrained, if not off-limits. The former is fine, and encourages political discourse - the latter not so much, and we actually produce trigger warnings in our body language: Leaning in to whisper, hand gestures giving a 'keep this down' feel. Hell, the body language index might be a good rule of thumb too. WarpedNaba fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:As the Trigglypuff clip showed, Tumblrites do attend centres of higher education, to the smugness of the former and the enormous detriment of the latter. Again, when has this happened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
I think there needs to at least be a distinction drawn between people like George Will and even David Horowitz who can at least claim to have done research, can argue in good faith, and can do a productive audience Q&A session, and people like Milo who is really an entertainer who has no expertise at all and is probably a fraud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
One of my friends keep regurgitating far-right idiot articles on how SJWs own campuses and trigger warnings are totalitarian. What, if anything, can I say to convince them they're being idiots? Links to media, articles etc. welcome, the person is a journalist and reasonably well-read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Funny how, when someone agrees with you, the suggestion that they might be espousing their belief based on their desire to conform with the opinions of their peers suddenly becomes an extraordinary claim requiring rigorous evidence, but not the rest of the time. That's not what you meant, though, and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious that at each year's orientation the campuses should just play the entirety of Irreversible to restrained students clockwork orange style
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That includes controversial topics. Saying "THERE CAN BE NO DISSENT WHATSOEVER ABOUT RAPE CULTURE" just moves the interrogation and discussion from lecture halls and classrooms to locker rooms and private parties. An idea should be able to stand up to scrutiny, even if you think that scrutiny is ill-intentioned. There's no scrutiny on a campus speaker, it's just someone getting up on stage and saying whatever they want with no counter-argument. It's not a debate, it's a platform. And rape culture is one of the worst things to have dissent about in college, considering that campus rape is a massive and widespread problem. It's like inviting someone to an addiction treatment center to talk about how awesome heroin is and how addiction is just a myth for wusses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Starshark posted:This is from a few pages back, but it's something else you're wrong about and shouldn't be allowed to slide. Incest ain't rare. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/america-has-an-incest-problem/272459/ (Those are some horrifying stats though.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The author of this article should be more careful how she words things, since she's clearly implying this is a primarily male-driven phenomenon, saying "Mothers and other family members" rather than "Spouses and other family members". It is, though. The statistics show that fathers and stepfathers are the most likely to engage in child sexual abuse, significantly more often than mothers and stepmothers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Tias posted:One of my friends keep regurgitating far-right idiot articles on how SJWs own campuses and trigger warnings are totalitarian. What, if anything, can I say to convince them they're being idiots? Links to media, articles etc. welcome, the person is a journalist and reasonably well-read. If they're using the term SJW without irony, there probably isn't anything you can do to change their mind, or if you can, it will be a long and involved process to get them out of that mindset. Arthur Crackpot posted:I find it really difficult to understand why people are so resistant to the concept of trigger warnings. Boiled down, it's really just basic loving courtesy and politeness. When I made a big blog post about some troubles I was having a few years back, I put a Trigger Warning For Suicide™ on it, because upon reading my own writing, I realized I was engaging the topic in a way that people who have dealt with depression and suicidal tendencies might find intensely personal and would bring such thoughts back to the forefront of their own minds - and it was even more important because I knew that the primary audience for the post was more prone to depression to start with. I didn't see it as a "political statement", just a warning that this might be very heavy material and if you struggle with such things yourself, you may want to get into a good mental space before reading on (and it was phrased that way). I guess I can see how, in our dominance-based culture, the idea of "triggering" could be used by clever (and probably caucasian, wealthy) students to manipulate their professors or the wider system, but professors forewarning students about subject matter that might be traumatic is simply professionalism. Doc Hawkins' story on page 1 is emblematic of what can happen if that professionalism and courtesy slips.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no scrutiny on a campus speaker, it's just someone getting up on stage and saying whatever they want with no counter-argument. It's not a debate, it's a platform. And rape culture is one of the worst things to have dissent about in college, considering that campus rape is a massive and widespread problem. It's like inviting someone to an addiction treatment center to talk about how awesome heroin is and how addiction is just a myth for wusses. No one thinks rape is good. Less rape would obviously be better. But there is actual controversy over the statistics underlying the idea of a rape epidemic on campus, and controversy over what schools can and should do to investigate and punish sexual assault. It is absolutely an issue where dissenting points of view are valuable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No one thinks rape is good. Sadly, you're quite wrong about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It is, though. The statistics show that fathers and stepfathers are the most likely to engage in child sexual abuse, significantly more often than mothers and stepmothers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No one thinks rape is good. Less rape would obviously be better. But there is actual controversy over the statistics underlying the idea of a rape epidemic on campus, and controversy over what schools can and should do to investigate and punish sexual assault. It is absolutely an issue where dissenting points of view are valuable. Now compare that ideal, with people like Milo, who legit has an article up arguing that the pill makes women fat and unhappy. Is that something that anyone is supposed to take seriously? What value can be extracted from that viewpoint? None. A line has to be drawn. We have to decide between a difference of opinion and a difference of sanity. OneEightHundred posted:I think there needs to at least be a distinction drawn between people like George Will and even David Horowitz who can at least claim to have done research, can argue in good faith, and can do a productive audience Q&A session, and people like Milo who is really an entertainer who has no expertise at all and is probably a fraud. rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No one thinks rape is good. It's less a problem of people thinking rape is good and more a problem of people thinking rape just doesn't plain exist outside of a man wearing a ski-mask jumping a woman in a dark alley while holding a gun to her head. And not knowing what rape actually is is a huge problem, it's why people don't see anything wrong with getting a woman as drunk as they can so they can their way with her when she's too far gone to say no. So having someone who reinforces that view is not only without any kind of value, it's actively dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's less a problem of people thinking rape is good and more a problem of people thinking rape just doesn't plain exist outside of a man wearing a ski-mask jumping a woman in a dark alley while holding a gun to her head. And not knowing what rape actually is is a huge problem, it's why people don't see anything wrong with getting a woman as drunk as they can so they can their way with her when she's too far gone to say no. So having someone who reinforces that view is not only without any kind of value, it's actively dangerous. Wow way to remove the woman's agency you chauvinist (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well, dissenting points of view are usually valuable anyone. Human beings suffer from confirmation bias, if you want to overcome that, you need an active 'foil'. But the 'foil' has to actually work on an intellectual level. So, what makes a good 'foil'? I'd argue it's the ability to communicate a coherent position in the language of the opposition. Each view point or perspective of course has their own language/jargon/assumptions, meaningful dialogue can only happen if that barrier is overcome. Two people simply stating or asserting their own language/perspective does not a discussion make. Milo honestly seems like a highly successful professional troll more than anything, and idk why anyone would take him seriously on any subject but I can get why he'd be an entertaining speaker. Here's wikipedia's description of what happened at DePaul University: Wikipedia posted:DePaul University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#cite_note-99 Regardless of what they thought of the speaker, the protesters were hilariously out of line. Another snippet related to an event at UCLA Wikipedia posted:Yiannopoulos spoke at the University of California, Los Angeles on May 31, where the event featured an interview-style presentation alongside Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report. Prior to the start of the event, protestors formed human chains to block the front door to the theater where the event was scheduled to take place. In response, those who wanted to attend the event were forced to sneak in through the back door, although the protestors also found out about that entrance and attempted to block it as well, subsequently leading to several attendees shoving their way through the crowd to get in. The Los Angeles Police Department officers on duty then had to prevent protestors from entering while letting attendees pass through, thus delaying the event for about an hour until the room could fill to capacity. Twice during the speech, Yiannopoulos was interrupted by a female protestor who shouted “You’re spreading hate,” and was subsequently booed by the audience; despite seeming to leave after the first outburst, she returned to heckle him again before finally being escorted out of the venue.[110] The next day, it was revealed that the LAPD had come in as the event was ending and told all those still in the theater that they had to be evacuated due to a bomb threat.[111]
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's less a problem of people thinking rape is good and more a problem of people thinking rape just doesn't plain exist outside of a man wearing a ski-mask jumping a woman in a dark alley while holding a gun to her head. And not knowing what rape actually is is a huge problem, it's why people don't see anything wrong with getting a woman as drunk as they can so they can their way with her when she's too far gone to say no. So having someone who reinforces that view is not only without any kind of value, it's actively dangerous. How can what people think rape is be accurately generalized like that? I mean... Here on this forum, over many discussions, people have expressed opinions ranging from "having sex with someone passed out drunk is rape", which seems uncontroversial, to "any sex involving someone who has consumed alcohol is rape", which seems ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
cravius posted:Wow way to remove the woman's agency you chauvinist So you're saying women choose to have their drinks spiked without their knowledge?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Now compare that ideal, with people like Milo, who legit has an article up arguing that the pill makes women fat and unhappy. Is that something that anyone is supposed to take seriously? What value can be extracted from that viewpoint? None. The problem isn't language, it's that a productive discussion starts with assuming that the opponent cares about being right, believes that their position is supported by objective facts, and isn't going to argue in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So you're saying women choose to have their drinks spiked without their knowledge? You didn't say anything about spiked drinks, friend
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
cravius posted:You didn't say anything about spiked drinks, friend Actually I did; quote:it's why people don't see anything wrong with getting a woman as drunk as they can so they can have their way with her when she's too far gone to say no. The most common date-rape drug is alcohol, by making the drinks far stronger than the victim believes them to be and encouraging them to be consumed as fast as possible one after another. Edit: None of this is relevant to the thread, though. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How can what people think rape is be accurately generalized like that? I mean... OK. How is this related to campus free speech? Nobody has provided any examples of somebody who has raised concerns about the definition of sexual violence or the way we measure it, in an academic context, being shut out of academia. The closest anybody has come is the disinvitation of George Will, who was explicitly not engaging with sexual assault on an academic level. What got him booted was a column that used a textbook-simple "no means no" story, calling out a specific victim's experiences in a national column, as an example of campus oversensitivity to sexual assault. There was nothing of academic value there: no engagement with the existing body of work on the subject, no careful analysis of our current definitions, no new proposals, no new thought. He just came up with a particularly dickish hot take and got slapped for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Is there a reason that we can't have trigger warnings, but put the impetus on the PTSD sufferer to proactively approach the professor at the beginning of the semester to make them aware and jointly agree and any accommodations or alternative curricula? As someone with mild dyslexia, this was certainly expected of me and I can't imagine it would have gone well for me had I neglected to mention this until the middle of a final exam. Clearly admitting to trauma can be a painful process, but it seems like a lot of the push back is based on the notion of the institution needing to anticipate what is triggering and provide guidance tailored to the most reactive of the student body.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
Lmao if you think spiking someone's drink is the same as drinking too much
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Epiphyte posted:Is there a reason that we can't have trigger warnings, but put the impetus on the PTSD sufferer to proactively approach the professor at the beginning of the semester to make them aware and jointly agree and any accommodations or alternative curricula? Two reasons come to mind. First, how is the student supposed to know what's going to come up in the class? If you have dyslexia, you can probably get a decent gut check of what accommodations you need based on the syllabus. You can see if exams will be one-hour open book essays, or 72-hour take-home up front. But, to take an example from earlier in the thread, a student who was born out of an incestuous relationship might not realize exactly what it means to have an extended discussion of Oedipus Rex on the reading list in their Greek drama class. Second, given that admitting to trauma is uniquely painful, and we can get a good sense of stuff that is particularly likely to trigger a PTSD response, why not just move it up front? Obviously, you're not going to be able to catch everything - if somebody has a deeply traumatic memory of a childhood swan attack, it's not reasonable for them to expect an up-front "trigger warning: swans" in a study of Romanticism - but for the most part it's not hard to figure out what's likely to set people off. Incidentally, the way that a lot of higher education handles disability issues in general, and learning-related issues in particular, is loving shameful. But that's a topic for another thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Milo honestly seems like a highly successful professional troll more than anything, and idk why anyone would take him seriously on any subject but I can get why he'd be an entertaining speaker. He's "entertaining" in the sense that his readers get to enjoy the fallout from his talks. He doesn't have an intellectual point to make, and as you rightly said, he is essentially a troll. He has no research and no principles. He essentially does sociology porn for old white guys But America is currently in a phase where we have seriously charged rhetoric. Sure no individual would take Milo seriously, but you get a large group of people listening to it, and it does stick. Milo knows how to pour fuel for an eventual fire. wateroverfire posted:Regardless of what they thought of the speaker, the protesters were hilariously out of line. I do agree with this, but what you're not saying is that this was Milo's first foray into public sphere. Hell I don't even think this was his first talk on his "Dangerous human being" tour (yes that's really the name). The students were all aware of the message and this was their reaction. I do think they needed to be more cool about this, but they also knew what Milo is like and that he isn't arguing in good faith. As out-of-line as that protest was, it was also the chickens coming home to roost. Who What Now posted:None of this is relevant to the thread, though. Indeed. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
Space Gopher posted:OK. How is this related to campus free speech? You should read the Phillymag article he was criticizing, because ROFL. The Op-ed wasn't even particularly dickish. Just a mildly clickbait WAPO opinion piece. Nothing to get a man disinvited from a speaking engagement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:53
|
|