It wasn't so long ago that "trigger warning" wasn't even a common phrase. I remember thinking about this in college, though, because I was in a relationship with someone who would get angry <i>at</i> people for expressing input that was too closely related to recent private trauma she had been through. I didn't really understand it because I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it affected me (an effect the producer would have had no way of knowing ahead of time). It should always be fine for an affected person to remove themselves from a situation that feels unsafe to them, but it shouldn't necessarily mean additional regulation.<p>I am totally in support of educating people to speak sensitively in the sense of it meaning not to speak flippantly or hurtfully about charged subjects - for instance, I will still object to jokes about prison rape - but for it to progress to the point of avoiding provocative subjects entirely, that just seems like anti-progress and willful ignorance.
What is most disturbing about this trend is the concept that some arguments are unassailable, that some ideas are not up for debate and discussion. "Safe space", while an admirable concept at first glance, has been co-opted by people who just want a rhetorical nuclear option to protect weak or unfounded arguments.<p>It quickly becomes a race to the bottom to see what is the crassest idea you can successfully firewall by accusing its opponents of oppression.<p>Ironically, this concept meant to bring to the fore the lived experiences of individual people (not an invalid goal when discussing social science topics) is most commonly used to suppress and silence - wait for it - the lived experiences of others.
This is the end result of a culture that treats children like dainty chinadolls that are going to shatter at the first fracture.<p>These kids are coddled since they are born to make sure they are "safe" and ferried endlessly from one constructive activity to another so they don't take any risk. Of course it will also be that they need "safe spaces" in college (basically extended high school) whenever they hear something tangentially against their worldview.<p>The assertion that a discussion of "rape culture" can be "too distressing" such as to require a trauma room is absolutely ridiculous. A part of it, I'm sure, is that the administrator needs to justify her unnecessary employment by creating work.<p>What farce.
Unfortunately, there's a real professional risk in speaking out against this tide of censorship, so I won't say much.<p>This is a great essay on the increasingly anti-controversy left: <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/" rel="nofollow">http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/</a>
I can definitely relate first hand to this as a current college student. To borrow some jargon, I absolutely feel 'unsafe' discussing many of these topics in public, and I don't hold controversial or polarizing opinions. Some people quickly label others as racist or misogynistic for presenting contrary viewpoints. Granted, those who seek to shut out debate by this sort of censorship are probably not worth debating, it's worrying that this rhetorical strategy is becoming mainstream.<p>Relevant smbc: <a href="http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164" rel="nofollow">http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164</a>
The more I see this kind of thing the more I am starting to fear that this is an unintended consequence of the internet.<p>Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while forcing out any dissenting view points.<p>Subcultures on the internet tend to trend towards the more and more extreme as anybody expressing an opposing view can be quickly and easily downvoted / banned.<p>Is it any wonder that now all the young adults entering university raised in this manner now behave this way?
<i>"Nowadays, it is true, we are made so sensitive by the raving crowd of flatterers that we cry out that we are stung as soon as we meet with disapproval. When we cannot ward off the truth with any other pretext, we flee from it by ascribing it to a fierce temper, impatience, and immodesty."</i> - Martin Luther, 1520!<p>Maybe not such a new phenomenon?
>The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies<p>That is something you would expect to find in a young childs room. Is that really the state they are at?<p>And also, what is wrong with a real puppy?
Is this phenomenon observable in cultures that are generally accepted as more progressively feminist than the US? (e.g. northern European countries, Germany, etc)<p>I'm not American and I don't know much about feminism, so for me it's hard to tell the proportions with which these ideas come from US culture vs feminism (there are accounts of UK based initiatives, but there is heavy cross pollination between the US and UK student worlds).
On the same theme, Bret Easton Ellis [BEE] has been a vocal critic of what he has termed "Generation Wuss" and "Outrage Culture"[1][2]. BEE is obviously trying to be provocative, which might get some people to dismiss him out of hand, but I really think he's onto something. One has to remember that BEE is an author of transgressive fiction, and has experienced attacks based on the content he featured in his books all his career (without his attackers bothering to analyze his intent).<p>[1] = <a href="http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview" rel="nofollow">http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview</a>
[2] = <a href="http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837" rel="nofollow">http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-w...</a>
>>>Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material.<p>The Church of Scientology had to create itself some safe spaces in order that its practitioners could feel comfortable learning new things in spite of the rampant counter-opinions on the subject of the mind, body and soul.<p>Does the idea that colleges and other social institutions need a safe space, away from all the 'counter-opinions' offend you? Maybe you should stop reading right now.<p>Unless daily protected from doing so, every safe space eventually becomes a prison. No institution is safe from authoritarian behaviour - even those who fight repression/oppression/suppression. In fact, it is a daily struggle to prevent these very human elements from impacting society - because fundamentally there is a desire in all of us, every single one of us - enlightened or otherwise - to repress those we do not agree with, suppress those we despise for whatever reason, and hate those for whom we cannot find anything to love about.
Here is my (completely unsupported) prediction...<p>People involved in "safe spaces" or passing out fliers against "rape culture" (not rape, that's a crime and a different subject), generally, on average, after college, don't enjoy happy long term rewarding relationships, successful careers nor make a lot money nor contributions to the world.<p>When I was in college in the early 90's I flirted briefly with the emerging "PC" movement, (many of the principals which I support in theory). I quickly distanced myself when I perceived the pervasive underlying negativity and unhappiness.
As an advocate of controversial discourse, i find these articles particularly rile me up. I would like a "trigger warning" whenever i read about trigger warnings.
So basically colleges and universities are shirking their duty to their students of providing them with proper education because they're afraid of lawsuits which the college will likely easily win. The whole "politically correct" culture of censorship, which this seems to be just another instantiation of, has just gone too far and too few people are willing to stand up against its censorship. There's nothing wrong with safe rooms per se until the existence of such safe rooms deprives others of their right to peaceful assembly, free association, and free speech, something that seems to be the goal of some of these organizers. Censorship is censorship and people who fall for these ploys are fools themselves while the people perpetrating these ploys are the ones who should be prevented from trampling others' rights. To put it more bluntly, if you can't deal with opposing opinions, it's your duty to not expose yourself to them, not anyone else's problem. It's despicable to try to remove others' rights because you're a cowardly child. Furthermore, if these people insist on being children, then they should have the rights of children (ie: highly reduced) and their opinions on such adult matters should be discarded (ie: we don't let children vote). I'd like to think that they could grow up mentally and stop being children, but I'm not so sure that many of these people have that capability.
Comedian, Chris Rock, no longer does campus shows for this reason [1].<p>[1] <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges-conservative_n_6250308.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges...</a>
People can be thrown into paralysis or panic by PTSD. Giving a warning that something is about to be discussed in depth that might trigger such an attack, allowing someone who knows they would experience one to absent themselves while the lecture or discussion continues, isn't censorship. It's courtesy.
That discourse is ridiculous, yet it seems like a simple case of the pendulum swinging too far. It used to be bad one way, now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, but only because people are still learning the adverse effects of the way things used to be. Once people learn, and feel comfortable with the new knowledge, things will correct themselves. I'm not worried.<p>The only thing troubling here is the medicalization of the emotions experienced during an intellectual debate.
Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe." Emotional topics can definitely benefit from intellectual discussion, but it is not unreasonable to say that a portion of the population may very well not want to be a part of it
OCD runs in my family, and as soon as I figured out I also had it, the way to get over it was to confront the things that "triggered" it. I've been wondering for a while if there's any similarity to not facing triggering issues in OCD and for all these people who've experienced trauma.
"Ms. El Rhazoui replied, somewhat irritably, “Being Charlie Hebdo means to die because of a drawing,” and not everyone has the guts to do that (although she didn’t use the word guts)."<p>Amusing that the NYT's fusty policy for censoring profanity pokes its nose into THIS quote, of all things.
This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject.<p>I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance.<p>Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying.