SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the this-article-may-trigger-strong-emotions dept.
There is a lot of talk on the net these days about microagressions, and it's good netiquette to post trigger warnings before discussing sensitive topics. What's good in online forums isn't necessarily appropriate in-person, especially on University campuses. The cover article for September's edition of The Atlantic magazine discusses the harm that students' requests for trigger warnings on course content and accusations of microagression are causing, stifling open conversation on campuses across America. The authors also suggest that these student behaviors are actively causing harm to the students.
Avoiding trigger topics, instead of assisting those who have suffered traumas, perpetuates and enhances the pathology of the phobias they hope not to trigger. The hunt for microagression creates in the students cognitive distortions that are usually treated with cognitive behavioral therapy. The authors are calling this "The Coddling of the American Mind", and suggest it will create a generation of graduates unable to cope with the world after graduation.
The authors also appeared on the Diane Rehm show, on a segment called "The New Political Correctness: Why Some Fear It's Ruining American Education". Far from trying to shut down the conversation about race relations, the authors are trying to re-open it.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday September 02 2015, @07:30AM
Speaking of false equivalence, look at TFA. It goes from "students request trigger warnings" to "avoiding trigger topics". Clearly if they are requesting trigger warnings they want to discuss those things, so it really makes no sense to then assume that those topics are off limits.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday September 03 2015, @02:24AM
Not having read TFA I'm inclined to agree, though I could easily see the sentiment being over-exerted as others are suggesting. Trigger warnings seem to me a courteous thing to do so that, if nothing else, people have a chance to emotionally brace themselves. Not unlike warning folks before showing surgery or other gory pictures that may trigger vomiting, fainting, etc. Perhaps though there could be benefit to not specifying *what* potential triggers are about to be displayed...
"What we're about to show/discuss/etc. may make some of you uncomfortable. If you are unusually sensitive you may want to brace yourself. [commence discussing topic]"
Sufferers could then get lots of practice bracing themselves, even though most of the time it would be for topics that wouldn't actually trigger them. Of course the question remains as to just how uncommon of a trigger we should be considerate of, I mean I vote against warning the fellow who's deathly afraid of butterflies, but that's a topic for another time.