-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
trigger warnings… yet again (american university student gov. edition)
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
So, provide an example of this. Cause putting "knowledge" in quotes, would mean the first is open to question, while I see you think it holds merit, and is somehow beyond question.
IOW, who would determine what triggers PTSD, trauma, etc.?
Trigger warnings don't have to amount to imposing anything on anyone. When a YouTube video, for example, starts with a disclaimer saying, "Warning: This video contains graphic and violent content. Watch at your own discretion," I don't think that amounts to "imposing" anything; it's just a heads up for people to choose not to watch if they know that could negatively affect their mental well-being in any way.
It's also not really a good idea to assume that everyone's triggers and experiences are the same. Do you think it would be okay for someone else with PTSD who advocates trigger warnings to tell you which content you should or shouldn't avoid?
You are certainly correct that you have no right to impose your handicaps on other people, but in what way would a professor voluntarily providing a trigger warning on his or her course syllabus be imposing on you or anyone else?
Professionals would determine what triggers PTSD, trauma, etc. Different people can be triggered by different things based on their experiences and trauma. Aside from listening to their concerns, professionals can determine what can trigger PTSD. On the other hand, people who oppose trigger warnings just because they think said warnings are "politically correct" (as if that were a bad thing in and of itself) and who have no professional knowledge of the subject definitely shouldn't get to dictate whether trigger warnings are necessary or not.
Am I being graded on whether I watch the content in that video? That is the difference. If I say I cannot handle the content in the video, based on descriptions of what's in there, then I would be the one imposing on how relevant it is for me to be taught the subject with that chosen material.
What if a student chose to opt out of a course knowing the repercussions as far as grades went? Would that still be imposing anything on anyone?
And what if they are mistaken? I get that we assume a professor or admin (staff) would hopefully be able to make such determinations... but the idea of "different people can be triggered by different things" opens up a door whereby it would not be truly plausible to conclude that professionals can pre-determine what is a trigger and what is not.
I'm not so sure it would be as complicated as you're making it sound. Professional evaluations and diagnoses exist for a reason. It's not like PTSD (for example) is some subjective condition that has no basis in psychiatric research.
I would say no, and strikes me as the primary point by those who criticize trigger warnings. If you think, even for a moment, that a course would trigger something unpleasant for you, enough to cause genuine stress or discomfort, then (perhaps) don't take that course.
Yet, if the course is requirement for major/graduation, then imposition would be back on the table. So, then possible to say don't even seek higher education if you have triggers, or choose a major that won't touch upon your triggers.
Perditus
へびつかい座
I think it's a lack of maturity.
I am constantly triggered. I have an especially bad reaction to the smell of meat baby food. Does that mean I go ballistic on everyone around me when I smell it? No. I exercise maturity by quietly removing myself from the room and sweating it out in the bathroom or the garage.
I've had flashbacks at the grocery store. I make myself as small as possible until they pass. I stand quietly sweating in the baking aisle.
I can't use an alarm clock or a microwave. That doesn't mean I expect everyone else to silence their endlessly beeping and ringing phones.
There is nothing good about supersensitivity and expecting everyone else to conform to your personal rules for how the rest of the planet should live in your own little world.
I don't see anything wrong with using trigger warnings and then letting students decide however they want to approach the courses. If anything, trigger warnings would allow them to decide whether or not they wanted to pursue any given courses, classes, etc.
Sure did. I even read the rest of the article that defanged the alarmist rhetoric to discuss what is actually happening with these policies and how things are actually working in higher education settings. And in that, I don't get what the problem is. Speaking as someone who works in higher education on student services issues, I feel pretty confident saying that a student proposal to include "mandatory trigger warnings" doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at being implemented. Schools already require instructors accommodate documented disabilities, and curricular substitutions are made on a case-by-case basis as they always have been. There's simply no need to mandate such a thing, as the support structures are already in place (at least they are at my institution). A voluntary "trigger warning" statement would simply make it more clear to some students that a particular course is edgy - something that really doesn't apply to the vast majority of courses a student will take in their program anyway. So yeah... not seeing what the fuss is about.
Once again, I think this argument is a slippery slope. If we were talking about removing parts of courses altogether despite their being necessary to the course, that would be a different story, but that's now how I see trigger warnings that merely point out that certain parts of a course can be triggering for some people. I see nothing "ballistic" about asking to have such a warning in place.
Oh my mistake! I didn't provide you with a trigger warning that I was departing from strict anal adherence to the OP in order to broaden the discussion. Sorry for the trauma!
I honestly think it is as complicated/absurd as I'm making it out to be.
I get that this issue started out as focussing on a particular item. It has blossomed, and I would imagine it would blossom even more if continue with the same rationale that is currently present. At some point (arguably several instances), the professionals/psychiatrists could show up as missing in their understanding of all that is known to be current triggers.
But I agree that it would be wonderful if today we could come up with all possible, (so called) legitimate triggers, whereby if a student tries to claim a new additional trigger, it is more or less treated as not legitimate.
That, to me, is where this issue becomes easier to understand. But if student A is triggered by something not yet thought of by the professionals, then wouldn't that be possible grounds for considering there may be (or rather easily could be) a whole lot more that is seen as possible triggers?
From the classes I took in college, some - not based on title or syllabus alone - I don't think it would be possible to understand until after the class was completed. And yet, this issue is trying to deal with it as it comes up, which is where I see it getting complex (fast) and getting to point(s) where absurdity is now reality, and there was seemingly no way for professionals to know that going in.
Isn't that the age-old question about many fields of study, though? "What if something came up that professionals don't recognize yet?" or questions along those lines. I see no real way to work around that except to work with the professional knowledge we have at the moment. The alternative would be either to ignore it or overreach by jumping to (as-of-yet) unevidenced conclusions.
Just an observation - this phrase "trigger warning" is fundamentally problematic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a term that trollish jerks coined to mock and make fun of people with various psychological conditions? I'm not aware of this term actually being used in a clinical context.