Talk show roundup?

I shared this earlier, can't you read?

Since making this post I've also added:

Talking Politics - which is a very good educated politics pod by some chaps from Cambridge.

I mean, don't make personal attacks which are not true please. Derailment.

What exactly do you have against the idea of a trigger warning for students in your class. If you are going to delve deep into the text of a book that explicitly describes child rape, what is your objection to saying so at the beginning of the lesson. Those types of descriptions can be quite traumatic for someone who experienced rape as a child. Should they not have the opportunity to at the very least prepare themselves for that type of description to be presented? Is it hogwash molly-coddle to have a bit of decency that someone in your room might have had these things happen to them and may be traumatized by reading descriptions of things similar to what happened to them?

Seems a hell of a lot less like being a molly coddle and much more like you being assholish for ******* sake.

Maybe stop lying all the time and people will be more civil.

As a matter of fact, in the one thing I teach which does feature disturbing scenes of that nature I do give advance warning.

However, when this came up it was because one student was complaining that a text was making them feel sad and that the material was too depressing (not one of my courses, but someone else's).

We simply cannot cave to stuff like that. It's university not ****ing nursery.

There's already a thread about safe spaces, I see no need to relitigate it here. Short version: it's a minor issue being completely overblown by a certain section of conservative society, one that has almost zero contact with actual university students or policy. Foldn made like thousands of posts on the subject that included a couple of legit examples where safe space culture had a detrimental outcome on people in the wrong end of it (e.g. Firings, administrative action); mostly it's just pundits and comedians whining that college students nowadays are too sensitive and can't take a joke. In most cases students WANT to implement more safe spaces and the like and are subsequently denied by the administration. Seriously it has little or nothing to due with the polarization of US society. The far larger issue is people in general treating their political party as a team and getting satisfaction from their "team" winning regardless of the outcomes.

I posted something coming from someone working at NYU.

This is a proper issue, and not some fringe nothing thing. It is something that spread quickly and needs to be quashed and soon. I'd suggest listening to Haidt from what I linked.

It's weird that these trigger warnings are such a big issue yet by your own admission you don't ever actually encounter them even though you allegedly work at a university.

Who is telling you to tailor these trigger warnings in such a way? Are these mandated from the top? If not, why is it a big deal? You explain to the student what trigger warnings are for and their stouation doesn't apply and move on.

Seems super simple. How does a 18 part youtube series arise out of that?

The issue is around this terminology being used to shut down views that challenge what students already think.

And especially their propensity to reach for racism/ sexism/ homophobia and filing complaints against professors when they were simply opening up issues for discussion.

Deny this has been taking place if you want, or contend that it is an issue of minor concern. The view I get from US colleagues seems to suggest otherwise. And as Haidt discusses, it's a very recent thing. 2013 at the earliest.

You don't think a student that has suffered serious trauma through sexual assault, possibly has PTSD relating to the subject, deserves a fair warning that there will be discussion of sexual assault in a lecture? You call that ridiculous molly-coddle nonsense?

It seems to me that you either don't have a clue what an actual trigger warning is or (more likely) you're just making stuff up in an effort to muddle the issue and confuse people who don't have as much information on the issue as you and I do.

It's the subtext of every anti-Pc screed; "I don't want to have to think about other people, I want to say whatever I want whether it offends or hurts someone is on them, not on me!"

Unanimously agree, wow. I'm surprised there weren't any hippy-dippy profs open to the idea of trigger warnings.

ITT we learn campus radicals doing dumb **** and colleges making dumb over-reaching liberal laws is a) a dangerous and wholly new thing and b) an existential problem facing the US that threatens to permeate all strata of society.

I mean American Spectator devoted several articles a week complaining about exactly this in the 80s - and we can see how the dangerous new breed of campus radicals has dragged our country into a grey repressive socialist hell-hole.

New comic idea: mushroom clouds go up - instead of "But her Emails" it's "But those campus safe spaces".

its truly insane. he completely changes the meaning of certain words and movements, and finds isolated incidents and extrapolates them as norms.

liberals and safe spacers and sjws dont want to limit free speech. these are some of the biggest proponents of free speech and civil rights.

every part of his argument is based on lies. truly disgusting.

LordLHGA is so dumb he just refuted his own premise about how pervasive trigger warning culture is with his own fictional ancedote

Here we go, hot off the press:

This shouldn't be happening.

lol well mebbe the guy should be criticized for stupidity then. wtf does data in those countries matter to merica? we have far different vetting structures.

Why is a neurobiologist getting involved in politics in the first place? Also, he isn't using crime stats from the US so it's likely there are other flaws in his "research." Maybe if he had better data he wouldn't get called out for making claims outside his specialty that seem to be biased.

plus the guys is ya know, at best a crackpot

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...an-be-bred-out

but more likely a pos bigot

He was looking at data. He shouldn't be forced to apologise for "hate speech" for doing so.

Utter insanity.

Why? Because total dimwits took to social media and barracked the university and signed a petition and all the rest of it, and now even pointing to statistical trends is literally shut down by these illiberal puritanical *******s.

So he said something about the travel ban, was criticized for it, and then he came back and apologized.

GUESS WHAT. That doesn't violate his freedom of speech at all. In fact, it proves that he has freedom of speech because he was allowed to say something unpopular to begin with. And the critics, well they have their freedom of speech as well. This is all just a big bunch of nothing when we've got serious, real problems going on.

And there are three of you IMMEDIATELY condemning him, clearly not had time to look at the numbers, or what he said, or anything else.

Just pile on, condemn, etc.

What is this? What is wrong with you?

You literally condone what has happened. You see this as natural and normal and something to be celebrated. Sickening.

We read the article and saw that what he said probably wasn't actually a fact and therefore he shouldn't be taken seriously. Otherwise people may see the link you're spamming around the forum and think you had an example of someone saying something true and getting shouted down for it. Your post was a lie.