Trigger Warnings, Campus Speech, and the Right to Not Be Offended

|

"It's really not anyone else's business to tell someone when they are mentally and emotionally ready to deal with things," says Bailey Loverin, a University of Santa Barbara (UCSB) junior who authored a resolution to mandate that professors issue "trigger warnings" before presenting material that might trigger memories of past traumas in students.

Feminist and social justice blogs popularized the concept of the trigger warning, with writers encouraging each other to label posts that might trigger flashbacks to sexual assault or domestic abuse. As the popularity, and scope, of the trigger warning idea grew, some bloggers began listing potential triggers, ranging from rape and violence and suicide to snakes and needles and even "small holes."

Oberlin College attracted media attention when its Office of Equity Concerns posted, and later removed, a trigger warning guide advising professors to avoid triggering topics such as racism, colonialism, and sexism when possible. The memo also suggests introducing discussions of potentially triggering works with language such as this:

We are reading this work in spite of the author's racist frameworks because his work was foundational to establishing the field of anthropology, and because I think together we can challenge, deconstruct, and learn from his mistakes.

Loverin says that her trigger warning resolution is much more narrowly tailored to protect sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). But she also goes a step further than anyone has at Oberlin by proposing that trigger warnings in the classroom be mandated.

"I don't feel that it's a problem asking for this to be mandated," says Loverin. "You're always going to have someone that's going to argue, 'Why? This is ridiculous. I shouldn't have to do this because I don't feel it. Why should anyone else?'"

Loverin's resolution passed the student-run Academic Senate and now awaits review by the faculty legislative body. Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), worries that mandated trigger warnings would set a troubling precedent on campus. He points to an incident that occured on the UCBS campus only days after the resolution passed wherein an associate professor of feminist studies stole a sign from pro-life protesters and then pushed one of them away when she tried to take the sign back. The professor's defense?

"What she argued was that the display was triggering," says Lukianoff. "It's a very unforunate part of human nature. If you give us an excuse to shut down speech with which we disagree, we're very quick to see it as an opportunity."

For the full story, watch the video above. Approximately 5 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Alex Manning.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

NEXT: Why League of Legends Rules!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I find trigger warning triggers stress in my system. We must tear down these triggers.

    1. No, we need trigger warning warnings, and so on recursively.

      1. Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours. I earn up to $500 per week. It’s a great work at home opportunity. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here http://www.Pow6.com

        1. Oh noes! Mah FEELZ! Why didn’t you warn me that this post would touch on the topic of money. You’re making me feel bad because I’m not rich!

          1. Your poverty is totally guilting me out about my diamond mines, man?! Can’t you not harsh my buzz??!

    2. How about a trigger warning for repeated comments

    3. WARNING: LAZY REASON INTERNS. THE FOLLOWING THREAD CONTAINS COMMENTS FROM DAYS AGO BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO RE-POSTED IT WAS TOO FUCKING LAZY TO PULL THEM OUT.

      1. Now you’re intern-shaming. They’re too busy polishing The Jacket after a rough saturday night.

  2. Trigga please.

    1. plus one

    2. +googolplex

    3. “LOLROTFLBRB”. Sorry, that made me choke on my cheezit.

  3. Yet, apparently, by mandating trigger warnings, It’s really not anyone else’s business mandatory to tell someone when they are not mentally and emotionally ready to deal with things.

    1. exactly.

  4. TRIGGER WARNING: Snark below.

    And probably racism.

    1. Can we just get a manadatory Trigger Warning as the first post, for every article?

    2. ?the snark might actually be me 😉

  5. Oberlin College attracted media attention when its Office of Equity Concerns posted, and later removed, a trigger warning guide advising professors to avoid triggering topics such as racism, colonialism, and sexism when possible.

    I thought that most of the curriculum at Oberlin was about “topics such as racism, colonialism, and sexism”.

    This kind of thing is so easily turned on its creators, I wish I was surprised that they didn’t realize this.

    How is this class not a festival of triggers (pulled almost at random from the course catalog)?

    AAST 132 – Introduction to African Studies: Patterns, Issues and Controversies

    This course introduces students to the study of Africa. It examines the often negative media representation of Africa as a continuation of a long pattern established by colonial anthropologists, officials and literary writers. It also examines the destabilizing impact of colonialism on pre-colonial African political institutions, social organizations, patterns of belief, etc. Africa’s current difficulties can more fully be understood within this context, which contemporary media portrayals of Africa often ignore.

    1. Yep. Seems like the course catalog is already a trigger warning. Fuck ’em if they didn’t know what class they signed up for.

    2. Indeed, shutting up about racism, colonialism, and sexism which vastly improve college education.

    3. “It also examines the destabilizing impact of colonialism on pre-colonial African political institutions, social organizations, patterns of belief, etc.”

      Whaaat ?

      Colonialism destabilized Africa before it was colonized ?

      I mean seriously people.

      This shit right here should be taken as a final warning to all free thinking people that we have too much time on our hands,

      Maybe we need a real depression or something to get those like this little bitch something worthy of worrying about ?

      How can we as a people look to a future influenced by such thoughts among us ? This truly disturbs me.

      This little wench wan’ts a warning label for life and thinks it should be mandatory.

      What is going to be the punishment for failing to give warning that something they may say might cause some delicate little flower to go mental because of Belgium’s King Leopold exploitation of the Congo for personal enrichment a few centuries ago ?

      This little wench should have a trigger warning sign hung around her neck.

      1. He means the destabilizing effect of colonialism on institutions that existed *prior* to colonization, not that one of colonialism’s crimes was to violate causality.

      2. As Agammamnon said, I think that you misread that statement – it seems to me to be a pretty straight-forward and sensible description of the class.

    4. *TRIGGER WARNING: Racist and homophobic language*

      a person dressed in Klan regalia was spotted on Oberlin College’s South Campus near the Afrikan-Heritage house and the Edmonia Lewis Center for Women and Transgendered People. Soon after the sighting?only the latest in a string of racist events on campus during the month of February?the college made the decision to cancel classes for the day.

      Man these people are easy to troll. Be briefly seen wearing a white sheet, classes canceled.

      Boom.

      Easy peasy.

  6. Welcome to 21st century America, where dogooder activists demand to be treated as infants. Stop the planet, I want to get off.

    1. I’ve a better idea. Don’t stop the planet, and throw THEM off.

      1. If the planet stops, we’ll all be thrown off.

        1. Wouldn’t it be the opposite – if the planet stops we’ll find it *harder* to get off (huhuhuhuhuh, you said ‘get off’).

  7. Isn’t it part of the job of a writer or an artist or a scholar to invoke in the reader or viewer an emotional response? Especially an emotion that may not be familiar or explored by the reader or viewer?

    If so, trigger warnings are terribly anti-intellectual, anti-new-experience. Colleges will become wombs.

    1. Wombs made from the carcass of freedom!

      1. Tleilaxu?

        1. Progressivism is the mind killer. Progressivism is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face progressivism. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the Progressivism has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

    2. Absolutely. ANd that’s expected. But making a survivor relive a trauma in a classroom environment doesn’t help anyone learn or grow. BUT a TW allows them to prepare for the content and take actions to either make sure they can easily step away or brace themselves to delve into it, then add a new voice or perspective we otherwise would have lost.

      1. derp

        1. derpity derp derp?

      2. I don’t see how anyone is *making* a survivor relieve a trauma in the classroom. Adults have a responsibility to avoid things that make them unhappy, and it is incumbent on the student/reader/whatever to apply a bit of thought to a course description/article title/whatever, and, if they have concerns, ask the professor/friend/whoever what is going to be discussed.

        1. Hey there. So a lot of classes say if you are gone more than twice your final grade drops by 1/3 or 1/2. That makes it a choice between mental health and passing a class you need to graduate. TW on the syllabi means the student has a little more info about what they have to face. If a student realizes 6/10 weeks in the quarter contains TWs for graphic war scenes and they’re a veteran, they know early on to talk to the professor to see if they’ll be able to make it through the class.

          1. I understand the attendance issue. Has anyone ever left a class, explained to the professor why, and still been docked for it? If so, I’d say the professor is being a real ass. But there seem to me to be other ways of dealing with that kind of professor, e.g., go to the department head, write it in end of year reviews, post it on public rating websites, etc. I don’t like your approach, not because I have reason to distrust *your* motives, but because there is no guarantee that you, and people that think like you, will always be the ones in power (such as it is in student government).

            1. Answering here because you do seem genuinely interested. Sadly, yes, and there’s not a lot that can be done to protect the students. The professor might get a slap on the wrist or a stern lecture from the department head but it doesn’t do anything. THe other problem with this is it requires the survivor to out themselves which is really hard for some people. If you’ve ever had to identify yourself as a trauma survivor you’ll know that people can completely change how they think about you.

              I definitely won’t always hold the power, but I think we’ve laid groundwork with administrators and faculty who will be here for quite a while and i trust that those people will keep it in check since it’s in their best interests.

              1. “It’s in their best interests”. Really? You give someone a hammer and tell them it’s only to be used on nails. They give it to a zealot and they likely will run around bonking people on the head.

                These TWs would help trauma suffers, however it’s not hard to imagine prog nutcases using these mandated TWs to stifle discourse. Why not solve the problem by using liberty? Form a damn campus group that provides support and information.

              2. So, you “hold power” huh ?

                And you have determined what is in someone elses “best interest ” huh ?

                What’s your next move ?

                Maybe start local, like city council and get some power there ?

                Perhaps a non paid internship for someone else who “holds power” and wants to mandate minimum wage laws.

                You could learn the ropes of how to really “hold power” as an apprentice power holder in hopes of holding power yourself one day and then you could do some real power holding.

                You people turn my stomach.

          2. This triggering shit isn’t for actual PTSD suffering Soldiers, it’s for progressive shits who claim an injury because they are 1/18 Cherokee and watched “Dances With Wolves” when they were 12 and cried. A fucking progressive professor would verbally attack an actual veteran for being a “child killer” in Bush’s illegal war all while moralizing that Obama earned his Nobel Peace Prize and throwing a fit if you mention that 75% of US Casulties in Afghanland occurred under his “leadership”.

            I went to Afghanland, so fuck these people who cry about “triggers” when they flip out because their Starbucks is 2* colder then they wish, and some word like “colonialism” forces them to reflect on Black Jesus’ failures in Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

            1. So this. And im still laughing about the Starbucks. Funny but so sadly true.

            2. Yep. I got my masters in a subject that required close study of terrorism, security, IR and history. By necessity, there was plenty of “triggering” stuff in our assigned reading. Almost everyone in my program was a veteran or still serving on active duty. Afterward, we agreed that facing that stuff in our assignments actually helped us. We didn’t need trigger warnings and, as grown adults, would have been insulted by them had they existed.

          3. If anyone NEEDS a class in African studies in order to graduate, then they have bigger problems than a lack of trigger warnings to worry about.

            How about, “Would you like fries with your order ?

            Or, “would you like a fried apple pie with your cardboard calories today” ?

          4. “That makes it a choice between mental health and passing a class you need to graduate. ”

            Bullshit.
            -You can talk to your professor before the upcoming class.
            -You can talk to the department head.
            -You can contact the school’s ACCESS or disability office.
            -You can bring a doctor’s note.
            -You can contact the dean.
            -You can walk out of class after attendance is taken/leave the room during the “emotional” part.

            Of course, this means you can’t just fuck off and sleep in on “trigger day”, which is what I imagine everyone wants out of this.

            1. Most school’s have policies that make it clear that students are required to report any disabilities or special accommodations needed. If an otherwise functional adult needs this kind of leeway in the classroom, maybe online classes is a better option.

      3. “But making a survivor relive a trauma in a classroom environment doesn’t help anyone learn or grow.”

        Sure about that?

        It’s not my favorite topic but I came back from my last deployment pretty hosed up. It was confronting my issues, rather than hiding from them, that eventually got me to rights.

        1. You’re clearly a racist.

          1. You forgot the trigger warning!

      4. The real problem is the inordinate number of folks who believe that they have survived trauma and are PTSD victims.

        1. ^^ This. I keep asking this ‘Bailey’ person what the criteria are for “PTSD”-sufferers and their population stats on campus and what actual complaints/incidents of ‘trauma re-visitation’ actually ever occur, and all you hear are crickets.

          its a big fucking sop about some fictitious class of ‘hurt people’; everyone wants to be able to claim ‘victim’ of something. Racism, sexism, ableism, classism, fucking Meat-eaterism. Whatever.

          I keep wondering how UCSB – a school of the most sheltered progtarded people on earth, has somehow become a victim trauma-center. I guess it has something to do with Living through the Bush era, or something.

      5. If hearing someone speak in a classroom ‘makes you relive a trauma’ then you have no business in a classroom. You need to be receiving out-patient treatment at the very least.

        It is a fucking school, not an asylum. At least it didn’t used to be.

        1. Check your trigger privilege!

        2. It is a fucking school, not an asylum.

          You clearly have not been in a higher education establishment in decades.

          Calling them asylums is and smear against institutions that ‘serve’ people with biological, medical, impairments.

          “Higher Education” is populated with and managed by miscreants that revel in willful moral, intellectual and emotional retardation.

    3. Many an untalented, oops, I mean modern artist has declared that the whole point of art is to shock. At least that is the excuse they keep giving me.

      1. Except when doing so threatens to shock the hive, then it’s completely out of bounds hate speech

  8. “I recognized the potential for it to be very triggering.”

    Okay who didnt tell Bailey about the rating system for movies.?

    1. OMG. Oh. My. God. It all makes sense now. The MPAA, the warnings on video games, the explicit sticker on my Eminem CD. Even the nightly news before that horrific video! There are content and trigger warnings EVERYWHERE!!!! These damn liberal progressives are ruining everything good!

      Sorry I’ll be serious now. THe actual resolution says that if there’s an MPAA warning the teacher doesn’t need a trigger warning, because I agree that that might just be overkill. BUT that particular film was independent and the teacher had one of the only copies since she knew the filmmaker, so no rating system. Indie and unrated films get shown a lot in classrooms and teachers usually tell the students what’s potentially trauma triggering. THis professor didn’t.

      But thanks for reminding everyone that warning systems are completely normal in everyday life. A+

      1. derp

        1. Derp Derp!

          1. Tipper Stickers

      2. Maybe you should have asked your private/intimate group if there was offensive shit in it bitch, instead of trying to force everyone else to accommodate to your wants. And yes liberal progressives are ruining shit.

        1. Wow? that’s aggressive. Okay. 1)There was nothing about the class to suggest that sort of stuff was going to come up so asking the professor if i was going to be shown a rape would have been a little weird. 2) If you’re going to insult me you can do better than bitch.
          3) Not my wants, the student body’s wants – it’s actually my job to advocate for these issues. 4) I guess it’s a good thing i’m a republican…

          1. Wow? that’s aggressive.

            You’re this deep into H&R and you still need a trigger warning?

            Fuck you and the subsidized transit you rode in on.

          2. Oh you seem a little put off, was I supposed to give you a warning before I called you a bitch. My mistake. Warning you may be called a bitch again. And allow me to repeat myself. Since you’re the one so concerned with “offensive stuff” perhaps you should ask about everything you do see or experience, not my problem but you sure want to make it everyones problem.. we wouldnt want you to be offended. Oh and I like “Bitch” because it provokes a reaction. Republican, RINO huh. Not that I like them anymore than lefties. Bitch.

            1. Dammit, quit being so aggressive.

              You will give it butt hurt again and soon we will have TWs all over reason.

          3. I think that at the college level, students are expected to act like adults. Part of that is expecting that “triggering” ideas may be discussed.

            Another part is dealing with it when they are. It’s impractical to expect curricula to avoid every possible trigger. If something upsetting to someone comes up, they should excuse themselves and leave. Send a note to the teacher later to explain, if they want. Or just claim your lunch didn’t agree with you. But campaigns to “protect” people from discussion of various ideas and events are silly and contrary to the mission of universities.

          4. It’s your job to “advocate for issues” ?

            HaHaHaHaHa

            So you saw a movie in class and it had a rape scene and it gave you butt hurt ?

            Grow up child. Just try not to leave so much damage in your wake.

            I’m still laughing about the “it’s my job” line/excuse.

      3. So the problem is that kids are paying $40k a year to sit through mandatory films (can’t miss 3!) that might make them uncomfortable?

        It would seem obvious that if the films did not make them question their very existence then it’s not worth the tuition.

        I can watch Netflix for $10.

        Maybe you hippy students should just stop raping 40% of your female classmates. Then you wouldn’t need to apologize every time you showed them a movie.

      4. You poor baby.

        Him had to watch a movie in class and it gave him butt hurt.

        That bad professor should shunned and called a racist or something.

        Grow a pair Bailey.

        Life awaits you and it doesn’t have a trigger warning.

        As I type this I can’t help nut read the TW on my bottle of water that says that water may cause drowning.

      5. teachers usually tell the students what’s potentially trauma triggering

        WTF is considered a “trauma” and what is “triggering”? If you’re that delicately psychologically for whatever reason, you really need to get back into the treatment facility. This is college. Next up, the WORLD. Good luck with that.

      6. You don’t think adults should be treated like adults.
        It all makes sense now. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.

  9. This makes me really sad. We are raising a bunch of fucking pansies.

    1. Welcome to Wussy Nation.

      1. People like this either fail miserably in life or they are the ones who grab the brass rings of power. This is some totalitarian shit.

        1. It is already speaking of “holding power”.

          I wonder what it’s life mission is ?

          To rule over others to protect them from themselves according to my better judgement of how they should live their lives.

          Maybe it is a Republican. It’s hard to tell the difference between a social republican and a liberal these days.

      2. -Wussy-

        /Ken Titus

    2. I’ll tell that to all the rape victims who have been thanking me for this. THere are about 2-3 sexual assaults in Isla Vista (where most UCSB students live) per weekend so I’ll have to sit a lot of people down and tell them to suck it up and get over the physical and emotional trauma they are dealing with.

      Or I could point to the amount of praise this has received from other students and the teachers and counselors who support it and say “At least we aren’t surrounded by a bunch of fucking assholes.”

      1. So rather than addressing the rape culture to reduce or eliminate the sexual assaults, or allow for self defense which would quickly eliminate the problem, the solution is to punish those who might inadvertently remind the victims of their experience? Perfect. Treat the symptom. Don’t cure the disease. Typical prog.

        1. Here’s the thing: if you read her resolution, there is no punishment. It’s a mandate entirely without teeth–it merely “urges” professors to provide warnings and “urges” them to not give bad grades to students who excuse themselves over upsetting material.

          I don’t know if Bailey’s ultimate aim really is to censor/punish people who don’t toe the line, I don’t want to impugn her personal motives, but I’m near certain that if allowed to proliferate, trigger warning mandates will eventually become another form of speech codes, censorious affronts to free speech.

          1. Thanks for reading the resolution – honestly, I’m really glad. You’re completely right: We as students have no teeth, no power to force this except our voices. Mandate got the faculty attention, it educated people, it’s creating a willingness to learn about trigger warnings and implement them.

            I absolutely refuse to censor anyone. I expect to be challenged, offended and made emotional in my classes. I don’t expect a survivor to be able to relive their trauma with no prior warning. Also, absolutely no punishment. Ever. Not negotiable. We’ve intentionally kept faculty and admin very involved in this process so that the furthest this goes is to place TWs on syllabi only so they serve as a heads up.

            1. I absolutely refuse to censor anyone. I expect to be challenged, offended and made emotional in my classes. I don’t expect a survivor to be able to relive their trauma with no prior warning. Also, absolutely no punishment. Ever. Not negotiable.

              I’m glad to hear that, but I think the cause of a lot of hostility (beyond the fact that there are clearly a bunch of people who haven’t read your actual resolution) is the danger that a simple suggestive resolution could be turned into a weapon of censorship by others who do not share your dedication to the use of persuasion over the use of force. That is the thing that I personally find disconcerting, because this sort of thing has been seen before, as with the aforementioned example of speech codes.

              1. I have to agree with paranoid android. Although this is currently just a resolution of the SA, I doubt that warnings on syllabi will be the end of it. These kinds of efforts tend not to result in a single discrete act, but rather morph into a series of progressively more aggressive measures.

                What happens when a professor does not comply, or when a professor’s attempts to comply are not deemed to be sufficient? Will the remedy be limited to persuasive means? Who decides which triggers are sufficiently serious to warrant a warning?

                The other concern is that, although you may be able to forewarn people to the point that they are not upset, offended or “triggered” while they are in college, what happens when they get into the real world? The reality is that most employers are not willing and able to give someone a timeout every time that they are upset by something. If the justification that is given for encouraging everybody to go to college is that they are developing the necessary skills for coping in the real world, then how does creating an unnaturally sheltered environment benefit them in the long run?

                1. Scroll down for in depth answers to your other questions.

                  Your last question is one that’s posed a lot: i’ve never once in my professional jobs been forced to sit and watch while my boss plays a graphic rape scene on my monitor. also in any meeting or project i’ve done I’ve known what it was about and if it was going to have trauma triggering material. and i had the option to deal with things when i wanted and in the way i wanted. the real world doesn’t stick you in a lecture hall of 800 peers then suddenly play clips of the nanking rape and massacre with 0 warning. the structure is different.

                  thanks for trying to engage with this and understand on a rational level

                  1. I understand that the intensity of the content at issue may vary between a class and a job, but it also appears that many people claim that a wide variety of things should be considered “triggers.” While I hate slippery slope arguments, there is something to the idea that the “trigger” concept does not necessarily have any clear boundaries.

                    What probably bothers many of the posters on here is the fact that there is a difference between having a desire to be sensitive to feelings of another and implementing a formal policy to mandate such sensitivity. Often things that start out employing “voluntary compliance” or “encouragement” end up resorting to coercive means when the initial efforts are unsuccessful. Considering the state of things throughout this country (and many others) I would say that we libertarians are justifiably concerned about abuses of power and restrictions on essential liberties such as free speech.

                    1. So this isn’t going to be a mandated policy. It actually is not. and it can’t ever be without teachers making it that way. So it’s totally voluntary. And you’re right that a lot of things can be considered triggers, but the resolution has a very narrow list to combat that. Is it perfect? no. But with revisions and trial and error and feedback from professors we can find something that works.

                2. “Who decides which triggers are sufficiently serious to warrant a warning?”

                  See this is the problem with this type of bullshit.

                  What totalitarian society ever took over in one day ?

            2. You seem like a nice girl. Really. But I really do wonder where you find the “right to not be offended” in the Constitution. If we are so weak-willed that everyday is a pen’s drop away from crushing our fragile little egos, perhaps we should be seeking psychological counseling?

              No one is saying victims of crime don’t exist. But the thought of making a sanitized world is a utopian fantasy that only will be politicized in the end.

              1. I don’t and it’s ridiculous to suggest that anyone has that right. I fully expect to be upset and offended in my classes. I don’t expect a rape victim to have to watch rape scenes with no warning and then tell them they have a fragile ego if they become distraught. Also, bear in mind that most sufferers of trauma do seek counseling and face these issues with someone trained. But that shouldn’t keep them out of society. Reading this might interest you: http://www.as.ucsb.edu/senate/…..-settings/

            3. I bet that if the students showed tits every time a professor gave a trigger warning, you wouldn’t have to use your teeth.

          2. PA, oh, it will come to that. Don’t you fret.

        2. 1) We are addressing rape culture. It’s a huge issue on campus that people are very involved in. We do have free self defense a lot (although that is also treating a symptom because addressing rape culture is to say don’t rape not don’t get raped).

          2) Where is everyone getting the idea that there’s punishment? NO ONE is getting in trouble here.

          3) Even though we do address rape culture and give people tools to defend themselves, you can’t ignore the fact that sexual assault and rape is still hugely prevalent. So students want this.

          1. I’ll go ahead and say it, since no one else will… how many of these “rapes” are proven to actually be rape? Obviously, if there is a serial rapist around, he needs to be locked up. But methinks a lot of these claims on a college campus result from morning-after guilt from drunken hookups. We create this victim culture in women, and at the same time denigrate TRUE rape victims. Seems like every woman wants to jump on the bandwagon of “I’ve been raped too!” because of all the attention that we shower (rightly)on the issue.

            I just have a very hard time believing that all 18-25 year old males are walking around with felonious intent. That is collectivist thinking at its worst.

            1. Studies show false rape accusations are pretty low. THey also show that most rapes are committed by a small amount of men, often friends of victims. Studies also show that about half of rapes aren’t reported. I really encourage you to believe the victims.

              Also this was a response to Thea’s comment, and it’s kinda getting away from the issue at hand.

              1. THey also show that most rapes are committed by a small amount of men, often friends of victims. ”

                You should be teaching women how to chose their friends instead of wanting to put a warning label on life.

                So, how many professors at your “school” are showing films that seem to always have rape scenes in them ?

                Maybe you need some new faculty also.

                Bailey you throw around the word rape like it is an epidemic.

                Have you been actually violently raped ( not a hungover regret style rape) ?

                If you have personal issues seek help for yourself and leave the rest of the world alone.

              2. “Studies show false rape accusations are pretty low.”
                Citation needed.

                “THey also show that most rapes are committed by a small amount of men, often friends of victims.”
                Interesting, what do your studies say about raped men? Odd that you don’t seem to care about that.

                “I really encourage you to believe the victims.”
                Like people that have falsely been accused of rape too, I presume?

                1. There are more rapes against men than women, but that doesn’t count because ‘privilege’ or whatever.

      2. There are about 2-3 sexual assaults in Isla Vista (where most UCSB students live) per weekend so I’ll have to sit a lot of people down and tell them to suck it up and get over the physical and emotional trauma they are dealing with.

        I wouldn’t know where to begin looking for validation of your assertion, do you have any suggestions?

        1. 1) from speaking with local law enforcement (I know – so easy to validate)

          2) But also there was an op ed in the school paper after a really violent rape written by an officer who was urging people to be more aware of ongoing sexual violence not just incidents like the one ( everyone was hyped up over a gang-rape, but no one was discussing the three other sexual assaults that weekend.)

          I’ll see if I can find it but i’m not having a lot of luck right now. Here’s this in the meantime: http://wgse.sa.ucsb.edu/CARE/sexualassault.aspx

          1. It sounds like Isla Vista has an insanely high crime rate. It also appears that SB County is one of the most restrictive when it comes to concealed carry of firearms: http://www.independent.com/new…..eapons/?on

            It seems like the “credible threat” portion of the Sheriff’s criteria for issuance of a CCW permit should be met when someone indicates that they live in or near Isla Vista. I have a whole lot more faith in the effectiveness of concealed carry than I do in the ability of people to change the “culture” in the area.

          2. Thank you. When your link declares on the front page touching is sexual assault you immediately lose all credibility. This tells me nothing about Isla Vista, a community of fewer than 15,000, although if unwanted touching counts as sexual assault maybe it does.

            Rape-rape, to quote noted deep thinker Whoopi Goldberg, is a crime, plain and simple. It is a crime committed by women against men, women against women, men against women and men against men. Depending on your math women being raped by men are the minority of rape cases. I find the politicization of sexual assault to be nauseating and you would be well served to stay away from positing dubious statistics and talking about rape culture.

            1. IV is a square mile unincorporated city that most UCSB students live in. If you want more stats on rape crimes and issues I suggest you take some initiative and call the IV Foot Patrol, UCPD, or do a little online research. I have midterms to study for.

              1. “If you want more stats on rape crimes and issues I suggest you take some initiative and call the IV Foot Patrol, UCPD, or do a little online research. I have midterms to study for.”

                In other words, I don’t have time to bother with facts and such as that. No time to back up my bullshit, I HOLD POWER and feel the need to use it.

                Bailey your statement earlier when you spoke of “holding power” tells me all I need to know about you.

                Good luck with your “women studies” degree !

                Can you say , “do you want to supersize that ” ?

                1. I looked it up. 4 forcible rapes per year.

                  I guess that means I can’t get my Womyn’s Studies degree.

              2. Sounds like Bailey just needs to follow the advice of Dr Dennis Leary: “Just shut the fuck up”

            2. Sexual assault isn’t synonymous with rape.

      3. You insinuated we are assholes ?

        That’s very aggressive.

        Why didn’t you give me a warning beforehand ?

        Practice what you preach.

        Or are TWs to be given only by we unenlightened ones ?

        It saddens me greatly to think that your thought process might be the norm for the young.

        Are all of you so easily butt hurt that you need to be warned that life is out there ?

      4. Sorry, but you are receiving thanks from the very people who are unable to function in society and need to get help elsewhere before returning to school. And perhaps if the dear boys and girls of Isla Vista stopped getting blind drunk every weekend, the number of rapes would lessen.

        And exactly how much time do professors in classes at UCSB spend talking about rape or other sexual assault?

    3. It’s not about being pansies, it’s about being totalitarian thugs who will use force to silence “offensive” speech.

      1. buybuydandavis|5.8.14 @ 6:48PM|#

        It’s not about being pansies, it’s about being totalitarian thugs who will use force to silence “offensive” speech.”

        What he said !

    4. We are.
      I just wrapped up a Sociology of Disasters course (don’t hit me. I registered waaaay late and got the leftovers) that emphasized government responsibilities in disasters.
      We spent an inordinate amount of time discussing Hurricane Katrina and watching documentaries about these families that chose to stay. I pointed out “If I had a family and knew a Cat-5 storm was three days out, I’d be leaving by any means necessary.
      Everyone looked at me cross-eyed and eventually someone mumbled “but that’s your home…”

      I lost all faith in humanity on that day.

      1. “..I pointed out “If I had a family and knew a Cat-5 storm was three days out, I’d be leaving by any means necessary.”

        That’s a trickier call than you might realize. I stayed in my home for a cat-4 storm, for a couple of reasons. First off, the storms exact trajectory was unclear until it was too late. Second off, go where? where is safe? 50mi, 100 mi, north, south? what’s it gonna cost, and how long am I gonna be gone? what are you gonna take with you? Third off, until I sat through one, I failed to appreciate the gravity of my situation, and what “cat-4” truly meant.

  10. Well and let’s not forget that the actual enforcement of this kind of mandate could DEFINITELY allow for someone to censor a professor or student because they felt “triggered”.

    Newflash: Creating rules based on how you feel leads to a lot of unintended consequences and potential abuses. So awful.

  11. Left-wing anti-intellectualism is more annoying than right-wing anti-intellectualism.

    Seriously, someone should do a parody of Inherit the Wind in which a high school teacher is put on trial for “triggering” in his classroom.

    1. “Left-wing anti-intellectualism is more annoying than right-wing anti-intellectualism.”

      It is.

      In Canada, the Boy-leader of the Liberal party of Canada – Justin Trudeau – just announced that pro-lifers are not welcomed in his party and need not apply.

      For a party that claims to be pluralist and open, they sure know how to act like progressive totalitarians.

      Which is exactly what they are while claiming to be “free” and ‘democratic”.

      Go fuck yourself Justin. You’re just another run of the mill progressive.

  12. Progressives are just emotionally immature.

    1. Better: “Progressives are fascists”

      1. Better: “Progressives are theocratic thugs”

        1. thugs is not accurate. thugs get their hands dirty and rough ppl up. they are prepared to execute violence.

          progressives are cowards who hide behind surrogates.

          Better still: “Progressives are fascist cowards”. fascist ideology, cowardly implementation.

          Now a progressive who also happens to be a dogmurdering cop or a govt regulator, THAT i could see being called a thug. he is putting his money where his mouth is.

          1. They are physical cowards and intellectual bullies.

            I once worked for such an asshole and I detest him and those like him.

            And the little wench who wants to put “warnings” on classes because she once woke up with a hangover and then called some guy a rapist.

            I cannnot understand why society falls for that “rapist” shit when two college kids get drunk and fuck the male is at fault. Does alcohol not affect men’s judgement as well as women ? Why is the man a rapist when two college kids get drunk and have sex.

          2. Or cowardly facists.

  13. As the video alludes to:

    “UCSB’s violent, thieving “feminist studies” prof: I only stole that pro-lifer’s sign and attacked her because I was triggered”

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03…..triggered/

    1. What happened with that was pretty messed up. Good thing the resolution doesn’t protect or excuse behavior like that!

    2. BTW, the trigger excuse appeared only later. I believe that the “professor” told the truth originally. Her belief was that the pro-life anti-choice teen had no First Amendment rights. Eventually even she realized that wasn’t going to fly. So she moved on to “triggers.” I wonder how soon triggering will be an acceptable excuse for violent behavior?

  14. I bet that Bailey girl is just a blast to be around.

    “Someone, somewhere might be offended by that. Ban it and punish the offender!”

    1. You’re sweet, I’m blushing. I bet anonymity feels great.

      Your so lucky i’m not offended though. I might have to use allllll my power to send an entire task force to punish you.

      1. You joke, but that’s what “you’re” doing, creating a means of censoring unwanted ideas. I notice you haven’t addressed comments that point this out like Gilmore’s below me or the UCSB prof who assaulted the girls protesting. It’s as if you think good intentions are all that matter. I’m not one to say rape victims need to suck it up, as opposed to stupid trigger warnings like colonialism, but giving opinions the color of law never works out well.

        And yes, anonymity is good. I’d hate to be forced from my job for having the wrong opinion like so many these days.

        1. Alright, if you’re interested, let’s talk.

          1) this doesn’t censor. This mandate doesn’t exist for one and there isn’t any way to force teachers to do this. Now a lot of them want to and it’s great but no one is being punished. So yes, I joke, because it seems like so many people actually think I have (or the student senate has) the power to do this. Also, we explicitly state in the resolution that this is not a way to censor or critique content. ANd there is no system for punishing anyone. Unlike Oberlin, I believe that the content is important and should stand, BUT some students need to be given advance warning about discussions if it’s going to make them relive trauma.

          2)THe UCSB professor. For really selfish reasons I wish that had never happened. She used the same language as my resolution but the similarities stop there. My resolution applies ONLY in the classroom (even books assigned for hw don’t apply) and neither protects or excuses what she did. It’s very sensationalist to stick the pieces together, but it’s apples and oranges. No, potatoes.

          Gilmore’s comment? This is about empowerment not victimization?heightened sensitivity isn’t negative and nothing here allows restriction of speech. Also our victims are not “fictitious”. It’s harder to dismiss them though when you’ve had the opportunity to talk face to face.

          1. Okay, I think there was some confusion because the term mandate was thrown around, which would imply an order that would be enforced. Just asking for notice is not really a problem in my eyes, as long as compliance is completely by choice. I think one issue around here is that too many have seen ideas like this start out innocuous enough only to be pushed into more extremes as people become used to the current system and more zealous people push for laws that force their opinions on others. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

            Also, I think the fictitious victims Gilmore references are more those who feel aggrieved by imperialism in the homelands of their ancestors or people who are upset because someone dressed in traditional garb from the same and believe every small perceived slight is racism or sexism or something, not actual rape victims.

            1. Yeah Mandate, tbh wasn’t my choice of title but it happened and i’m a part of this so I have some responsibility in it. So far, I can assure you that no one has pushed for any additions at all and I honestly don’t want a warning list a mile long because it won’t be taken seriously.

              Alright I can see that. I mean I was once called a racist for wearing henna as a white person so I know how that goes. -isms aren’t really meant to be addressed on our list and here’s why: a victim of racism may consider it a trauma if they were assaulted by racists. Sexism becomes traumatic if they were raped. (i.e. my boss offered me a promotion, and then tried to make an inappropriate move). Those things (graphic violence/rape/sexual assault) are already covered. We’re trying to be very specific.

              1. So, after having actually read the resolution it seems a lot more reasonable than initially presented and more limited in scope. I think they did you a disservice by putting the resolution along side the Oberlin issues. I also don’t think Zach or Lukianoff read the resolution, based on how the mandate is presented in the text. The only thing I would change is that you allow an individual to update the list rather than having to bring it back before the council. I think it’s generally a bad idea to focus power. Who would have thought understanding a topic would benefit discussion?

                1. Of course I read the resolution. I can’t speak for Lukianoff, but I sent him the full text of it before the interview, and I’d be shocked if he hasn’t read it as well.

                  Bailey herself said to me in the video that she thinks trigger warnings should be mandated because some professors inevitably will be holdouts and resist the idea. So I’m not sure what to make of this other than back tracking or a misunderstanding of the word “mandate.”

                  1. “I’m not sure what to make of this other than back tracking or a misunderstanding of the word “mandate.””

                    duh, silly! Its the opposite of “Forbidden”!

                  2. It becomes a bit of a dilemma when mandating the resolution mandates that we “urge” professors lol. There are admittedly flaws in it, but those will iron out over time, and when I and my co-authors write this at times other than 2am.

                2. haha I agree with you quite a bit, thanks for actually taking the time to engage. It really does mean a lot to see someone step back and examine the facts.

                  updating the list is the job of someone from the Office of the Student Advocate (my office), the head of the Women’s center, someone from counseling and psychological services, and the head of the Resource Center because I don’t want just one person to have the authority on it. I think that’s really dangerous.

                  1. Bailey, I’d love to talk to you after you’ve been out in the world a few years. Giving the trigger listing authority to a bunch of people like this will lead to mission-creep, as almost everything in large institutions does.

              2. you are either disingenuous or a fool if you think the mental process that creates ‘trigger warnings’ wont lead to mandates backed by state violence.

                you need to study the mental process involved. instead you are drowning in a heavenly awareness of your good intentions.

            2. And I promise, I’m actually pretty fun to hang out with.

              1. Bailey, kudos to you for standing up for your idea, and for not turning hostile when confronted with direct push back. Indeed, you’ve responded instead with logic and good humor. And I think you’ve made a reasonably persuasive case.

                I agree with several other posters that this could be the edge of a slippery slope, but I never think that in itself is a reason to not do something.

                PS: Posting on the Reason forum board is not for the faint of heart.

                1. ^ And I second that.

                  1. True. Hell, we tear apart those that agree with us.

                    1. I agree, you good for nothing, shit for brains, fucking ass weasel!

                2. She did a better job than Tony!

                  1. Faint praise indeed.

          2. “? This is about empowerment not victimization?”

            Not to accuse anyone of throwing out ‘positive sounding words’ instead of addressing the specifics of anyone’s actual statements (Sophistry 101)…

            … but, just for fun*, can you explain how “empowerment” works here?

            Because last I recall in my own feminist-studies = in the whole “power structure” theory of things, this ‘power’ is only useful insofar as its ‘over’ someone/thing?

            So who is getting ’empowered’ by this, and who is sacrificing it?

            ‘nothing here *allows* restriction of speech?’ (nice choice of words there: who’s doing the “allowing”?)

            I presume you think “mandates” are somehow the natural opposite of ‘restrictions’?

            by “Forcing everyone to follow our guidelines”, everyone is ‘free-er’?

            UCSB Doublethinkplusgood A+

            1. Sure. Empowerment because when they are aware of what content will deal with, survivors can choose to address it instead of being blindsided. Giving a choice and giving control over the situation allows for the person to feel like they have more agency and can make their own decisions instead of suddenly having trauma triggers thrown at them. I’m not sure what you mean by the power structure thing but I also don’t really like Fem Studies classes. Clarify? Victims are being empowered, maybe sacrificing a little printer ink to add a few lines on the syllabi? The resolution doesn’t allow for it. I don’t know what you’re trying to get at. Mandates instruct or order; yay I know words. But nothing is going to be mandated. No one is being forced.

              YAYYYYYYYY A+!!!!!!!!

              1. What is the incidence of ‘trauma events’ at UCSB?

                I mean, if there’s a “problem”, I’m sure its being measured, right?

              2. I think that “empowerment” is healing sufficiently to be able to live in the world and accomplish tasks such as attending college without special kid-gloves treatment. And, for the record, I am a sexual assault “victim.”

                Again, how often is rape discussed in courses at UCSB? And if it so thoroughly covered, why does UCSB still register as one of the academic rape capitals of the country?

          3. “The UCSB professor. …She used the same language as my resolution…”

            This is the problem. You are laying the foundation for a system where such people will censor and punish. In the same way that that execrable bitch uses the language to justify her totalitarian thug mentality and behavior, others will take it further and institutionalize it.

            That will happen as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

      2. I’m in no need of anonymity to tell you that you are a “wanna be” junior totalitarian in training.

        Your remark earlier about “holding power” exposes you to Reasoniods for what you truly are.

        I just pray that you don’t ruin some young man’s life while on your crusade. If I could I would warn every young man on that campus to never, ever, get weak and touch you. The next day ramifications could be life altering if you had a hangover when you woke up.

  15. All the concept of ‘triggers’ does is enable anyone at any time the ability to assert their own special-ness via claim to being a member of a ‘victimized class’, which gives them the arbitrary right to censor or proscribe others at whim.

    Its particularly convenient aspect is that it does not identify any particular subject or context about which one must maintain some kind of heightened sensitivity = it can be applied to ANYTHING retroactively, and allows people to restrict any speech they find objectionable on the grounds it *might* trigger “someone else” (the fictitious hordes of ‘victims’ who need to be protected)

    Its effectively a concept born out of “Relativistic Literary Studies”, projected into the Real World.

    I recall in the peak of 1990s PC-derpness, the consensus view of Faulkner was that “maybe he *wasn’t* a Racist = but that *doesn’t matter* because his prolific use of the term ‘Nigger’ affects people differently and his intention is no longer relevant”; this extended to words like “niggardly” – which has no ‘offensive meaning or intent’, but which *could produce the safe effect regardless*, because the listener can project their own meanings onto the term.

    Part of me had hoped that ‘Shit this stupid has to end up killing itself’.

    Not so much, I guess.

    1. John had a good suggestion – just abandon the universities and get educated through other means which don’t involve hanging out with a bunch of screaming wusses.

      1. At this point, this actually seems like a very good idea.

        I would be perfectly willing to set up a school that allows for “maximal offensiveness”, and accepts only students who consider themselves grown-ups and can leave if they have a fucking problem.

        “Action-Park University”

        1. I was thinking of an online school with proctors in the local area to monitor you when you take the exams.

          The question of offensiveness would still come up when you text a dirty joke to another students, etc., but at least people won’t be in a position to assault protesters they disagree with.

      2. Given the resources available online these days, this is a far better option than it has ever been before.

        -jcr

      3. I disagree. Although it has gotten very very bad on many campuses, I still think that meeting other people as part of your college education is important. Electronic discourse is unreal in several ways.

  16. Remember after World War II, when the GI Bill brought all those veterans, including PTSD sufferers, onto the campuses? There were no trigger warnings, so those students were always freaking out and having flashbacks. Any reference to the war, or any sudden movement, and the veterans would scream and curl up into fetal balls!

    1. You’re right. That’s why we commonly refer to those folks as “The Wussiest Generation.”

    2. Oh, but they were men, and far too insensitive to be triggered like that. Sexist pigs.

      -jcr

    3. +1 Professor Terguson

    4. Remember after WW2, when PTSD wasn’t taken seriously and people who reacted badly were passed around the system and misdiagnosed and told it was nothing serious?

      1. ….is that supposed to have something to do with Undergraduate Speech Restrictions in Liberal Arts Universities?

        Or are we not making the ‘obvious connection’ here?

        Do all Marine Veterans of Fallujah get a free ride to UCSB or something?

        Or are they a bunch of self-important, whiney Millennials?

        1. Yup. It adresses PTSD – something historically dismissed and validates it. Let’s not freak out over it.

          1. no, Bailey =

            You seem to be comparing “Students @ UCSB” with “Survivors of WWII”.

            how people dealt with PTSD after WWII would appear to have absolutely nothing to do with the emotional problems of kids @ college who have no comparable incidence of ‘trauma’.

            I asked before whether you’ve actually bothered to establish who is actually ‘at risk’ or ‘affected’ by the “problem” you are trying to address.

            Not gotten much in the way of answer.

            I assume anyone who has a negative reaction to any given material can still ‘complain’ though, right? I assume there’s no need to actually ‘validate’ my actual ‘traumatised status’?

            its odd how discussion about this policy seems to vacillate between ‘its no big deal and it isn’t even enforced or mandated’ and OMG kids suffer from trauma equivalent to extended combat tours

            1. UCSB disabled students program recognizes PTSD as a disability and responds to it on campus.

              WE have a veteran population on campus. i know we’re young, but it isn’t just 50+ who are veterans in the US. Don’t invalidate their experiences.

              Survivors of recent trauma (violent assaults/rape/war) are VERY happy to see this resolution. Almost everyone else is happy to see them get help and not upset by two lines on their syllabi.

              You can always complain, but if you go get diagnosed we can actually make teachers accommodate you. Or, the DSP can. I can’t.

              THe no big deal part comes from the fact that a lot of people seem to thing AS Senate and I have a ton of power that doesn’t actually exist. BUT the issue is a big deal because these kids actually have served combat tours or have been through traumatic events. So we need to be aware and address it.

              Gilmore, you seem like a passionate person and that’s awesome, but this is the last reply you’re going to get because I’m feeling pretty passionate about passing my class right now and I also don’t think we’re ever going to see eye to eye on this. Have a good one!

              1. Lord please save the world from people who want to save the world.

              2. “Survivors of recent trauma (violent assaults/rape/war) are VERY happy to see this resolution.”

                I’m a “survivor” of recent “trauma” (though I would hardly compare assaults and rape to war… they are distinctly different) and I am NOT very happy to see this resolution.

                Perhaps you’d do better if you didn’t speak for people you will NEVER understand.

              3. “Gilmore, you seem like a passionate person and that’s awesome, but this is the last reply you’re going to get because I’m feeling pretty passionate “

                Socratic Dialog = how does it work?

      2. Surely there’s some middle ground between the Greatest Generation’s reaction to horror (man up, as it were, and not talk about it) and the Wussiest Generation’s unending focus on super-specialness and victimhood? it’s as if it’s a competition to get into a protected class of special people–the opposite of the old not wanting to be in “special” ed.

  17. TRIGGER WARNING: scorn and derision for brain-dead bubble-head bimbos who want to bubble-wrap the world.

    If you can’t handle a professor talking about grown-up subjects, then get the FUCK out of college and check yourself into a rubber room.

    -jcr

    1. Oooh?. That’s a new insult, and a TW joke I haven’t heard yet. Good job!

  18. Someone ask Bailey Loverin if the Duke Lacrosse Players are entitled to trigger warnings before anyone can discuss, in their presence, the enforcement of rape laws or combatting sexual abuse on campus — to prevent them from re-living the trauma of being falsely accused of rape before the entire world. Because, you know, “It’s really not anyone else’s business to tell someone when they are mentally and emotionally ready to deal with things,”

    1. You can ask me yourself. If the players who were falsely accused feel so traumatized that dealing with the issue will cause extreme physical psychological and emotional reactions, and if there are other student son campus also triggered by this then yes. A trigger warning in the classroom setting about rape would stand. THat’s actually already included in the resolution. I think you may not understand it though. THe UCSB resolution applies only to screenings or discussions inside a classroom. Not in homework or at events or programs because the student can then choose to leave and disengage with the material. I understand the challenge you’re trying to make but your idea of the what is actually happening may be a little warped.

      1. What’s your threshold for number of people that must be butthurt before this takes place? 1? 2? 5? 10? By your own statement above it must actually be a minimum of 5.

        “players who were falsely accused”=3
        +
        “other students”= at least 2
        = butthurt population necessary for totalitarianism lite

  19. I’ld like to say I’m appalled by Bailey Loverin’s desire for censorship (because that’s what this is), but mostly, I’m resigned to the fact that these people actually think they’re helping others. Regardless, they should not and cannot be allowed to win in the marketplace of free speech.

    1. PS if you read the actual resolution it specifically states TWs shouldn’t be used to censor or critique content. All thats being asked for is a heads up. I don’t want or expect anyone to remove material.

      1. Riiiiight. And Seat Belt laws weren’t going to be primarily enforced.

        Until they were.

        What YOU expect is overwhelmingly naiive.

        1. to be a policy, staff and faculty have to vote it into existence. So if that happens, sure, it’ll be enforced. Do you think it’ll happen?

          1. You have a job waiting for you
            @ “Good Intentions” Paving and Roadwork INC

          2. With UCSB’s staff and faculty?

      2. and if professors DO NOT include ‘warnings’ on their materials… and a student complains…? Then what?

        *note story below re: professor fired @ Vandy in 1994

        1. Nothing. It’s not a mandate. No punishment. We just let them know there’s a complaint and they can address it as they like

          1. So… this is a policy addressing a clearly defined population (no) suffering from a well-documented ‘problem’ (no) with Strictly Enforced and Vigorously Applied…(no)…

            How about group hugs for everyone? Voluntary, of course.

          2. You do understand that someone, likely more than one, will get fired over this eventually. Right?

            1. Not at UCSB. They’ll likely get a medal.

    2. But she “holds power” and therefore must use it.

      Some people just aren’t smart enough to realize when they are being helped.

  20. How about a policy that says students can step out of class for a few minutes to gather themselves. What? That’s what pretty much every professor does anyway?

    Carry on, then.

    1. Yes. Goddess help these people when you are born from the UCSB womb into the real world. I’m sure employers will be happy to provide trigger warnings about everything in life. Oh, wait, the feds will probably require it soon.

  21. In response to Bailey’s first post above, posted down here so it’s more likely people will see it:

    The fact that you got a lot of people (at UCSB, of all places) to agree with a potentially speech-stifling measure is not in itself an argument in that measure’s favor.

    Now, it seems to me that by your own wording, Bailey, calling this a “mandate” is a misnomer, because all the resolution does is “urge” professors to warn people about this and that and “urge” them not to let people’s absences effect grades.

    Suggesting that people warn others about what is commonly accepted to be upsetting material is, as you point out, pretty much just common decency, so on that level it all seems very unobjectionable.

    But let me ask you personally: is it your intention that these “trigger warnings” should be made mandatory for all professors? If so, what punishments do you propose for professors who fail to conform? And what system do you suggest to discern people who have valid emotional problems that may need assistance from people who just want to game the system by declaring any academic assignment/requirement they dislike to be “triggering”?

    1. Glad I saw this.

      Eh, okay, you can see it that way.

      Yup, misnomer but I wasn’t actually the one who titled it.

      Pretty much, except some people aren’t aware of what triggers even are. this is educational.

      Now the fun stuff: They aren’t going to be made mandatory. I promise it isn’t going to happen. I would love to see them in every place that they fit but I’m assuming it won’t happen. IF, if, a student complains they didn’t get a TW when there should have been one, the teacher would be told that someone was triggered by that material. THat’s it. No punishment, only awareness. If they still don’t put a TW on it we aren’t going to do anything to them. THat’s kinda ridiculous. I don’t want to punish anyone; that’s going to really spin this whole movement the wrong way. Your last point is very very valid, but we’ve planned for it. I’m gong to continue in a second comment so I can address it fully.

      1. “They aren’t going to be made mandatory. I promise it isn’t going to happen.”

        Well, as long as you promise then I suppose my concerns aren’t that valid.

        But wait. You said earlier that you weren’t always going to “hold power”.

        What happens to us after we no longer have you “in Power” and holding back the reins of those who are now “in Power” ?

      2. I am not aware of what triggers are. Despite living for decades in the world. Please point me to something definitive.

        And do you really think that a prof at UCSB won’t be pilloried for failing to anticipate that something is triggering to someone? Or for declining the invitation to participate in this exercise altogether?

    2. To the last q.

      The TW should go on the syllabi so if a student realizes that the amount of triggering material will interfere with their ability to actually learn the material they can switch classes before it’s too late. BECAUSE, we only ask that participation points not be docked for the student who steps out because they are triggered. That said, they are still responsible for learning the material on their own. They can still be tested on it and asked to know it. So yeah, slackers can say stuff they dislike is triggering and avoid it but they’re only hurting themselves and their GPA. Does that answer your concern?

      1. I like your insistance that this won’t be mandatory. I believe that you believe it. I don’t, possibly because I consider colleges and universities to be institutions historically prone to censorship and exclusionism.

        My father was a professor of the History of Science and Technology, his specialty 18th century England. In that period mant of the best minds of the age were excluded from attending Oxford and Cambridge because they were religious dissenters. Joseph Priestly springs to mind. Nor was that era particularly bad.

        I shy away from policies that seem to encourage censorship, or even well-meaning sheltering of selected adult minds. I also can’t help but feel that this sends a message to rape victems that their experience has permenently marked tham as “other”, which strikes me as a bad idea.

        1. To become a policy, the staff and faculty have to vote it into existence. They don’t want to. It won’t happen unless teachers want to make it a policy.

          Sounds like your dad is a cool dude.

          I think there’s some truth to this, but it’s better I feel to give everyone the information than to expect those students to identify themselves as a trauma survivor to professors in order to get the info they need.

          1. That hasn’t been my take on the dynamics of free speech on college campuses nationwide. If you agree with the orthodoxies embraced by the faculty, then you can say what you damn please, and nobody on campus says boo (even when, as in the Duke “rape” case, you make total pillocks of yourselves). Oppose an Orthodoxy by, say, passing out copies of the Constitution, or questioning Global Warming and your meetings will be disrupted, your civil rights violated, your property vandalized, and you may even be assaulted.

            Academic Liberals only value TEIR OWN freedom of speech, and simply do not believe that anyone, anywhere, would try to curtail it no matter WHAT policies they help to put in place.

            In this they are remarkably like the Academic Church of Englanders who were a pestilence on scholarship in the 1700’s.

            Good luck. I truly hope that your policy will turn out exactly as you imagine. Me personal guess is that it won’t, and it will prove to be one of a number of steps to stifle unpopular views on campus.

      2. If a simple college course can possibly include “the amount of triggering material” that will interfere with a person’s ability to learn material then the person does not belong in college. They need treatment.

  22. General rule: if you’re trying to “protect” some part of the public from anything except their rights being violated, then you probably need to rethink it.

    I really wish that idea would be fathomable to more than 0.1% of the population.

  23. I see this ending with an ever-increasing list of triggers. Who gets to decide what is a legitimate trigger? Some sort of panel of administrators, faculty and students? Great. I’m sure that there won’t be any attempts to pack that particular panel with people who think “the correct way.”

    I can foresee a split in many universities, with the hard science and engineering departments going off on their own, the first time someone decides that a heliocentric astronomy course offends them.

    Also, high approval numbers really don’t mean much. Some of history’s worst tyrants have had high approval numbers, at least for a while.

    1. No attempts to pack. Its not in our interest to do that because the longer the list gets the less seriously it’ll be taken. Debate and dissent is encouraged.

      1. Debate and dissent is encouraged.

        Unless the dissent is itself triggering, in which case…banned! See how that works?

        1. nothing is banned censored or critiqued. Just a heads up that it’s being covered. Check out the resolution: http://www.as.ucsb.edu/senate/…..-settings/

    2. Do I have the right to freak out even if warned?

      It’s a solution in search of a problem.

      1. Yeah if you want. Scream Shout Let it all out.

    3. Of course it will. Like the never ending list of races (“Hispanic”) and the never ending list of disabilities and the never ending list of special gender/sexual orientations.

      And the panel comprises the very persons most likely to go way overboard on this, because it is their job to “protect” students and unless they need more protection, their jobs might be in jeopardy.

  24. wow. I thought this trigger warning crap was just online jezebel kind of crap. Had no idea it happened in real life.

    1. I actually don’t think Jezebel uses TWs. and Fun Fact, it got it’s start offline before it moved online.

      1. How did Jezebel work offline?

        1. I assume it didn’t? I meant TWs got their start offline. My bad.

          “The clinical notion of triggering dates back far as 1918, when psychologists tried to make sense of “war neurosis” in World War I, and later World War II, veterans. The term “post-traumatic stress disorder” came into use after the Vietnam War, but was not recognized as a diagnosable affliction until 1980. Then, psychologists started to work with clients to identify possible PTSD “triggers,” or a sensory input that somehow resembles the original trauma. But anticipating them is notoriously difficult. They assume disparate and unpredictable forms. An essay, or film, or other piece of media might trigger a person, as could a sound or a smell, a physical space, a specific object, or a person.”

    2. It doesn’t. It happens on campuses like UCSB.

  25. So, Bailey =

    Do we teach Faulkner or not?

    AND

    if so, must it come with a series of SIDE-EFFECT warnings like a Cialis Ad that says, “POSSIBLE RACISM, GENDER STEREOTYPES, CLASS PORTRAYAL, REGIONAL DIALECT PHONETIC SPELLINGS WHICH MAY IMPLY CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE TOWARD MISSISSIPIANS, POLITICALLY UNCOMFORTABLE PORTRAYAL OF CIVIL WAR VETERANS, COMPLEX SENTENCE STRUCTURES WHICH ARE NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF POST MODERN SLAM POETRY, etc.?

    or can they just read Faulkner?

    1. I wrote one of my best essays on A Rose for Emily. Love Faulkner.

      Annnnd, they can just read Faulkner. THe resolution doesn’t apply to homework or outside reading. ANd college classes don’t usually have reading out loud in the class.

      I think reading the resolution might help you understand more : http://www.as.ucsb.edu/senate/…..-settings/

      1. “And college classes don’t usually have reading out loud in the class.””

        ‘Its totally like Not A Big Deal!! I can’t see what you’re complaining about. Its just that you can’t actually quote or mention any of the things the author says in the book for fear of using the N word without providing a Warning”….

        yeah, that totally doesn’t interfere with anything.

  26. Since the alleged “problem” here are people suffering from ‘PTSD’…

    …wouldn’t it make sense that if a “problem” like that affects a very small subset of the population….that the policy “solution” you put into place to ‘help’ said people ALSO be very narrowly tailored so that it only applies to that very narrow segment of the population?

    If there is in fact a real population (and not ‘faux victims’ or ‘victims of convenience’ as the situation merits) of ‘at risk’ persons, then why would one not want to seek out these people and help address their issues *specifically* as opposed to instituting policy which affects every single student and teacher in an entire institution – and not only that, recommend said policy be expanded to the broader educational realm sans any real examination of whether a) the Problem population is even affected in the ways they claim, or b) whether said ‘warnings’ have any positive result at all?

    Or (gasp) is this really just political speech-policing under the guise of ‘defending victims’?

  27. I am suddenly reminded of a situation that took place @ Vanderbilt in the mid-90s….

    An art teacher at the school (Don Evans – RIP) was doing a Photography course, and was asked by students if he could provide examples of work of contemporary photographers whose work he thought was ‘groundbreaking’. He invited students to an after-class slideshow in case they were interested.

    he showed some Robert Mapplethorpe pics that had the guy in a mask with a dildo up his ass, etc.

    No one commented to the prof at all. About a week or two later, Prof Evans gets a call from the Dean and is suspended. No explanation. Students in his classes (I was one) are pissed off. Finally it comes out that a girl in his class saw the material, told her daddy, and Daddy called the dean and…whammo.

    Students protest, Dean is embarrassed, and Don gets his job back. It was a un-typical moment @ Vandy, which was a pretty conservative school; however, Don was a much-loved teacher.

    Anyhoo; Point being = I don’t think a ‘trigger warning’ would have helped Don. I think the existence of such a concept would have led Don to NOT SHOW THE STUFF IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Which is exactly how most teachers would respond to the notion of ‘warnings’. Self censorship. because once people start telling you ‘there’s a line that you can’t cross’ but Wont tell you where the line IS? You censor yourself. i.e. Political Repression FTW~!

    1. go dores

      1. We Penn State fans thank you for your coach.

  28. Because nothing says the transition from child to adult like exporting the responsibility of your emotional well-being to the people around you.

    1. ^^Well said.

      Threadwinner.

  29. Now, people, please be polite to Bailey. If it really is Bailey Loverin, props to her for entering this den of snark to defend her resolution, which she is doing pretty well.

    I see her points, but to many of us here, this is a slippery slope. As I said above, college students should be prepared to be exposed to upsetting ideas, and if they are exposed, there are ways to deal with it short of asking for trigger warnings.

    Another problem is that this is, to a great degree, an example of contemporary culture eating itself. For decades the impulse has been to push the envelope, discuss the forbidden, and end all taboos. TV sitcoms have dialog that would have gotten movies or plays shut down generations ago. What used to be called “sexual perversions” are discussed in detail in the news. Straight-out attacks on Christian belief are common. Old standards about what was considered appropriate for polite conversation are gone. (And I’m just noticing, not complaining.)

    (cont.)

  30. But now, we have a countervailing social force, coming from the direction we call Political Correctness. In this view, upsetting (some) people with words and images is a serious matter. The problems with this are legion: It only seems to apply to some people (e.g. upsetting Catholics is fine, upsetting Muslims is not; upsetting whites is fine, upsetting blacks is not). It contradicts a core point of university education. And perhaps most importantly, there are no inherent limits on how this could be applied. For all of Bailey’s protestations about wanting this to be applied carefully and fairly, it’s inherently subjective. There’s nothing to prevent anyone with any trigger from claiming that their trigger should be included. Why shouldn’t someone object to a discussion of gun control because their mother was killed by a burglar because she couldn’t buy a gun? The whole idea of trigger warnings seems like a recipe for chaos.

    1. Hey there, thanks for avoiding the personal attacks. A lot of people find it really helpful to read the resolution and see what it actually does: http://www.as.ucsb.edu/senate/…..-settings/

      Let me know if there are any specific questions you want addressed

  31. I’m sorry I jumped into this post late. It’s nice to see Bailey here sincerely defending her ideas, and some people respectfully debating her. I wish the comments were like this more often.

    But reading through the discussion, I have to say that I found her argument unpersuasive. She seems to have good intentions — minimize trauma for people who really did experience something awful, encourage basic human decency. But the road to hell, yada yada yada. I feel like I’ve seen this movie before.

    1. I’ll add that I don’t have a problem with TWs per se. As I alluded to above, it sort of just seems like common decency to warn people about something is very likely to be offensive, or to be flexible with someone who is really traumatized by something.

      But I do have a problem with the institutionalization of TWs. It may start as a polite request, but I have a hard time believing it will end there.

      1. How much offensive or triggering stuff goes on at UCSB? I mean, really, seriously.

  32. Also

    the UCBS campus

    Typo or subtle joke?

    1. Good eye!

  33. I’m nearly pulling my hair out at the infantilization going on here.

  34. Whereas: UCSB CARE (Campus Advocacy Resources & Education) reports that: 1 in 4 college women will be sexually assaulted during her academic career

    Citation needed.

    1. UCSB CARE page has all that info, and they cite RAINN as their source http://www.rainn.org

      1. These aren’t citations.

        1. Can she cite feeeeeeelings?

      2. Not that an entity that relies on donations based on the perception of a threat is a good source for such data.

      3. And are the citations they take from RAINN valid, or is RAINN prone to inflating statistics in order to justify their existence and drum up charitable contributions?

        Because it seems to me that an anti-rape non-profit has an incentive to overstate the occurrence of this crime in order to make their importance seem greater than it is.

        FYI: The 1 in 4 college women will be raped stat comes from an already refuted study that was published in Ms. Magazine, an obviously biased source with a political agenda, in the 1980’s. Even most honest left-wing professors admit at this point that the one in 4 statistic is horseshit, especially given that America’s rape rate, as of 2010, was 27 per 100,000 people. Steven Pinker, for example, has completely trashed that statistic despite generally being on the side of the left.

        If one in four college girls were raped, the rape of college students alone would mean America’s rape rate should be double or triple what it is. I trust the FBI’s rape statistics over an obviously agenda driven organization like Ms. Magazine or RAINN.

        1. The MSM is peddling a 1-in-5 college (or higher ed) sexual assault rate. Apparently it is based on a recent web survey involving two high ed places with low participation rates and the usual methodology: questions based on highly legalistic definitions, which produce sexual assault rates which aren’t even in sync with the respondents’ evaluation — like she got wasted and hooked up: that’s sexual assault (rape) according to a strict interpretation (she couldn’t give valid consent) but the majority of women don’t think that they were sexually assaulted (raped) when such couplings happen. Of course that is because the suffer from false consciousness.

        2. That’s because you’re a professional or corporate sponsored rapist, or an aspiring rapist who listens to too much talk radio rape jockeys , or a pro-rape team partisan/sympathizer shill who just wants to keep your options open. You will obviously say anything to discredit decidedly anti-rape coalition at RAINN, in order to muddy the waters, and poison rational discourse. Check your privilege, we’re on to you…

          1. listens to too much talk radio rape jockeys

            The real subversive work is done at places like Minding The Campus.

            1. It seems I can’t make a proper href entry, so:

              http://www.mindingthecampus.com/

  35. I think I’ve addressed as much as I can here. My midterm paper is now a bit late so I should get on that. A few final thoughts.
    – I really appreciate those of you who’ve actually tried engaging with the material, and understanding it’s limitations. I also appreciate those of you who can banter a bit (I mean I’m snarky as hell) and still avoid personal attacks. I never tried to be a public figure, I never expected any of this media attention, and at the end of the day I’m still an average teenager balancing work and school and the giant mess that is life. So thanks for recognizing I’m human too.
    – It’s sensationalist fun to connect this to the sign stealing professor but the only common thing shared between us is we both go to UCSB and we both said “trigger”. THat’s it.
    – This has gone to academic senate, comprised of teachers. THey want to see this as a suggested tool and have more information made available about triggers and TWs. They don’t want a policy. That’s where this stops folks, until the teachers change their minds.
    -I’m really against censorship. There is no censorship happening. And honestly, if a teacher rather change their entire course than add two lines on the syllabi I don’t want that teacher.
    -Only unrated films and planned discussions actually fall under the resolutions criteria. No outside readings or programs or events.
    cont.

    1. Ah, so you are the arbiter of what is triggering and what is not?

      You really can’t detect the problem with this sentence, ‘It’s sensationalist fun to connect this to the sign stealing professor but the only common thing shared between us is we both go to UCSB and we both said “trigger”.’

    2. I appreciate your taking the time to engage in a rational discussion. And I was drawn to the story because of the previous UCSB story about the sign-snatching, scratching professor, who ultimately claimed to have been triggered by a poster held by a person that she proceeded to assault. It’s the NOTION of triggers and protection from ideas or expressions of ideas that is the problem as I see it. You discuss them as if they are, well, real, and important. I don’t see that and think that people who are unstable should not be in college until they’ve had their issues addressed (or addressed their issues). Finally, you say now “no mandate” and “only unrated films and planned discussions” but what comes next?

    3. I can’t imagine any situation in which showing a video containing graphic depictions of rape or other violence would be useful for teaching a college course, except for courses where such content is central (for instance, forensic investigation) and students who have problems with that content would know to avoid the course from the getgo. Ditto for graphic class discussions of these things. So we’re probably talking about professors are just being lazy or careless in their video selection.

      So if that’s what you’re trying to clamp down on, why don’t you make it specific, rather than applying the mandate to vaguely-defined “triggers”?

  36. It’s been cool, it’s been fun. Had some awesome discussions with some of you. If you’re still interested in debate or learning check out the actual resolutions and these other sources. i’ll try to eventually check back and answer legitimate questions.
    http://www.as.ucsb.edu/senate/…..-settings/
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article…..vory-tower

    1. You are welcome back here anytime Bailey.

    1. “If students are suddenly confronted by material that makes them ill, black out or react violently, they are effectively prevented from learning…”

      yeah, there’s no debate about that.

      Except = how many cited instances of “illness, blackout, inadvertent violence” have occurred in the last few years?

      Solution sans problems. always need more of *them*. why not? awareness. empowerment.

    2. That is hilarious. You’re a second year literature student at Santa Barbara who provides not one single citation for the actual frequency of people ‘passing out’ or becoming ill due to triggering material.

      No professor is going to teach over the rape victim who stumbles out in hysterics or the veteran who drops under a chair shouting.

      In four years in college, not only did I never see this happen, despite going to the sort of left-wing school where you might expect such theatrics, but I never heard of it happening. If a soldier had randomly freaked the fuck out in some class and started screaming, that certainly would have made the student newspapers.

      I was at a school of 45,000, and in 4 years can think of no instance where this occurred on campus. You’re basically arguing that we need obviously censorious trigger warnings while not providing a scrap of evidence that triggering episodes occur with any sort of frequency to warrant such warnings.

      You’re fighting an army of your own delusions but are too narcissistic to realize it. Like many progs, you create a psychodrama in which you combat a horde of enemies, none of which actually exist, and then give yourself awards for vanquishing dragons that were only ever in your mind.

      1. “we need obviously censorious trigger warnings while not providing a scrap of evidence that triggering episodes occur with any sort of frequency to warrant such warnings”

        Very good way of summarizing what I tried to say. +^^:) Bonus points.

  37. Regarding ‘triggers’ –

    it seems like the term is repeatedly cited in the context of a traumatized population. as though ‘clinical trauma’ is something that has been widely prevalent in society but somehow unaddressed for decades?

    I mean, can’t we all recall the dozens of times that we’ve witnessed people utterly re-traumatised by something they were inadvertently….

    no, me neither.

    I keep asking about how Bailey defines the ‘at risk’ population… and in very political form, you get a non-answer-answer like,

    “Bailey|5.8.14 @ 6:48PM|#

    UCSB disabled students program recognizes PTSD as a disability and responds to it on campus.

    There’s no attempt to really specify ‘the problem’. And she says, she’s against having ‘the traumatized’ having to ‘self-identify’.

    Are there actually frequent incidents of people being horribly traumatized? or is it just a sop to EVERYONE’s ‘feelings’? CAN it be used simply for the latter? Can I now make complaints to this intermediary board about anything that occurs in class that makes me have ‘icky feelings’ rather than actual *PTSD*-symptoms?

    Bailey seems to completely elide all that, and pretend that there is no real reasonable case for why this sort of ‘voluntary system’ doesn’t default into a form of Arbitrary Speech Oversight.

    The fact that such a thing has never occurred to her is probably excusable. The fact that the idea still seems to bounce off her does not.

  38. I also find it interesting that no one has mentioned the case of the abortion protestor getting “silenced” via the excuse of ‘triggering’. I’d think it a side issue were it not the same university.

  39. Wow. What else can we do to homogenize the academic experience and ensure no student ever feels uncomfortable? What better way to prepare them for the hostile outside world?

    1. “Homogenize”

      Your use of this word is potentially offensive to the QLGBT community and needs to be checked prior to posting on this thread. You have been Warned.

      1. And we didn’t even get a trigger warning.

        I may not be able to get my paper turned in on time and it;s all because I didn’t get a trigger warning.

  40. my neighbor’s mother-in-law makes $81 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $18141 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you could look here…..
    http://www.Works23.us

  41. The only trigger warning you should ever need is: “ALL CLEAR ON THE RANGE!”

  42. No Tony is why this thread is boring. I’d settle for Palin’s Butthead at this point.

  43. I find the term “trigger” to be offensive. It is weaponormative. Also, “Warning” has the word “War” inside of it. More verbal violence.

    1. Thank you. I needed a laugh.

  44. She is emotionally unstable, therefore we must not say anything that causes her to react… as opposed to , she needs to see a shrink 3 days a week and take some meds ? or , she needs to learn to manage her emotions as she matures into a human being

  45. Up next: presence of males in class as a trigger.

    1. Males are the source of all Evil acts in the universe, so… why not?

      in unrelated news = I just learned that

      “Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell” (AKA ‘WITCH’)

      ….was like, a thing =

      http://alturl.com/fs5gu

      I liked this =

      “In 1969, W.I.T.C.H. held a protest at a “Bridal Fair” at Madison Square Garden. Members wore black veils. They handed out pamphlets titled “Confront the Whoremakers”, chanted “Here come the slaves/Off to their graves”, and had a mock “unwedding” ceremony. The protests also involved turning loose several white mice at the event, which Fair attendees began scooping up off the ground. The event resulted in negative media coverage for W.I.T.C.H.”

      Really? never would have expected that.

  46. They’re not even trying to pretend anymore that we have anything other than a nation of pantswetting infants.

  47. Presumably when the trigger warning is given, the students are permitted to leave class without fear of retribution if they claim to have a trigger, and guaranteed that the trigger-containing material won’t be on the test.

    1. I once got raped by a calculus equation. And by a physics course.

  48. Personally, every time I see the letters, W A R T and Y strung together, my but puckers up tight enough to cut diamonds. Maybe it was getting stuck in a near infinite Doomcock? rape-loop.

  49. Thanks for re-running the derp, reason. Clearly, we all need more derp in our lives.

    I demand a trigger warning for articles about trigger warnings. Because you aren’t allowed to traumatize me AGAIN with this shit – as if the first time wasn’t derp enough.

    Derp on you, reason. Derp on you.

    1. “We’re going to need a bigger trigger warning.”

  50. It seems to me that a much better use of the student bodies energy would be to get attendance policies changed.

    I’m sorry, but I’m paying you 40k a year, I’ll show up when I damn well please and as long as I actually do my work and take the tests, you can kindly fuck off would be a good start.

  51. You know what triggers me? Reposted articles that include over 240 obsolete comments.

    Especially when said reposted article might end up being the last item of the day, thus discouraging weekend linking.

  52. I got your triggers, bitches. If you’re a feminazi or proglodyte, or other variation of leftist idiot, every single thing you say triggers me to beat you senseless, so it must be justified.

  53. Looks like I missed all the fun today.

    1. Me too. It started out with the gaming thread and something about Obama’s love of killing brown childins. And now, a thread with more than 200 posts on a Sunday?

    2. So, reading the word “fun” reminds me of the time I was mocked in class and picked on by the meanies, thus bringing back extreme feelings of pain and derp.

      I’ll just lie here in the floor in a pool of my tears now.

      THANKS FOR THE TRIGGER WARNINNG, SUTHEN.

  54. Eleanor Clift: Ambassador Stevens wasn’t murdered, he died of smoke inhalation.

    Cool. Apparently if I set someone’s house on fire and they die of smoke inhalation, I am not guilty of killing them.

    1. Bush lied, people died!

      Osama bin Laden’s dead, and GM lives!

      Suck it, bitches!

      /Newspeak

    2. I think we can run with this. Ahem:

      JFK wasn’t assassinated by a communist, he died from brain damage.

      1. Lead poisoning… and an aneurism..

  55. So after re-reading the thread I think a lot of posters here were very unfair to ‘Bailey’ and it really makes this commentariat look bad.

    It’s one thing to mock Tony or Palin’s Buttplug since they come here only to shit on the boards, but it just rubs me the wrong way to see a person like Bailey, that was clearly arguing in good faith, be treated like that. I think we can be better than that even if we feel she is wrong or using faulty logic.

    1. I said only “derp”, and I stand by that. God bless Bailey’s little well-meaning heart.

    2. She wasn’t simply using faulty logic. She was using statistics and anecdotes which were refuted decades ago and was behaving as if only a neanderthal could doubt these magnificent stats that only Saint Bailey of Santa Barbara was privy to.

      Examples:

      Remember after WW2, when PTSD wasn’t taken seriously and people who reacted badly were passed around the system and misdiagnosed and told it was nothing serious?

      This is mendacious bullshit. I see it all the time when people aren’t able to argue a point. Rather than provide evidence for their point, they simply say ‘this old thing was mocked and turned out to be true, just like this thing I’m saying!’ Sorry, but that’s not arguing in good faith. It’s the equivalent of a UFO fanatic saying that he must be right because people made fun of Darwin when On the Origin Of Species first came out. The fact that something else used to be mocked and turned out to be true is not evidence that a new argument has any validity behind it.

      That’s not even getting into the ludicrous USA Today article she posted. She provides not one citation and absurdly proclaims that we need trigger warnings in all classes because class will be disrupted by all the rape victims passing out or vomiting on the floor.

      She provides no evidence of such things actually occurring, but just expects the reader to unquestioningly believe her. Again: Not arguing in good faith.

      1. She’s probably just ignorant and the product of being insulated in an environment that never challenges her worldview and instead reinforces it. That’s pretty much college is for these days.

        If she genuinely does not know how to argue then it isn’t the same as bad faith arguing. In any case, being a bit more courteous and gracious might have had the effect of getting through to her.

        1. Agree with GMSM. Bailey, like Suthen said, if you’re still reading this, please come back anytime. I’m late in the game but most people here will engage good faith arguments in a healthy way.

          Oh and enjoy college. And say hi to Shawn Spencer for me,

      2. What Irish said. X10

      3. ” that’s not arguing in good faith. It’s the equivalent of a UFO fanatic saying that he must be right because people made fun of Darwin when On the Origin Of Species first came out. “

        Note above =

        I asked what the incidence of PTSD was on Campus.

        She responded, “The Dept of X defines PTSD as an blah blah blah”

        Rhetorical bullshit evasion non answer logical escapism.

        If that’s what you come with? You deserve whatever raw deal you get.

    3. I agree. I wanted to say something similar. Reading this thread was pretty disappointing. Not as bad as the “Finding Mr. Righteous” thread, but still pretty bad.

  56. “Behind the rise of Boko Haram – ecological disaster, oil crisis, spy games

    “Islamist militancy in Nigeria is being strengthened by western and regional fossil fuel interests…

    “A more recent study by the Congressionally-funded US Institute for Peace confirmed a “basic causal mechanism” that “links climate change with violence in Nigeria.” The report concludes:

    “”…poor responses to climatic shifts create shortages of resources such as land and water. Shortages are followed by negative secondary impacts, such as more sickness, hunger, and joblessness. Poor responses to these, in turn, open the door to conflict.””

    http://www.theguardian.com/env…..-depletion

    1. Climate change kidnapped those girls.

      Awesome.

    2. Holy fuck, you were serious. I thought you were joking, as no one could be that stupid.

      We.
      Are.
      Doomed.

      1. No, we’re not. We simply have to make progs and assorted other leftist retards, irrelevant. We’re on course, don’t stop fighting the good fight.

      2. Isn’t the standard response of progressives to blame the actions of individuals who belong to certain groups on one of the original sins of the West. Sins like poverty, fossil fuels, racism, etc. And if put in charge they will eradicate.

    3. “..A more recent study by the Congressionally-funded US Institute for Peace confirmed …”

      The Kick-Starter funded Foreign Institute for War? was unavailable for rebuttal on that report, And their older study was allegedly debunked…

  57. Derp exchange of the day, courtesy of Salon:

    Frank650 2 hours ago
    Read the news on Hollande who tried a Piketty approach of high taxes on the wealthy:

    “Hollande promises to turn around French economy with tax cuts”

    Subtitle

    “French President plans to cut spending and taxes”

    I guess Hollande didn’t ready Piketty who blithely opines that high taxes on the wealthy doesn’t kill growth and jobs.

    Oops…..

    DaveL 1 hour ago
    Nothing blithe about it. Picketty backs up his conclusions with data and facts. These data and facts prove that your blithe and fundamental opinion, upon which conservatives have rested their entire worldview, is false. High taxes on the wealthy do not kill growth or jobs.

    Your wet dream, that the wealthy create your jobs, is proven just that. Something imaginary that conservatives masturbate to

    I’m beginning to think that the majority of Salon commentators are conservative/libertarian acolytes and bots programmed to regurgitate prog talking points.

    Because that response makes zero sense in the context of what ‘Frank’ said.

    1. France did what Picketty said and it had catastrophic results.

      If Picketty’s policies have bad real world results, then I’m not sure he had particularly good data or facts to back up his points.

      I also seriously question how many progressives actually read the book. I feel like they’ve probably heard of the book and bought it so that it will look nice on their coffee tables, but it’s probably going to end up like this generation of leftists’ Das Kapital – just a massive tome of a book that they vaguely gesture towards when they have company as evidence of what All Right Thinkers Believe.

      1. This

      2. I got Wealth of Nations and a Hayek book both of which i have only read parts of.

        Also there is Matt’s and Nick’s “Declaration of Independents” which i have only looked at parts of.

        .

  58. SCENE: A room. The Tenure Committee of the Department is meeting. Dean Martin addresses the committee members:

    MARTIN: Today we decide between two candidates for our vacant professorship.

    Professor Jones has an acceptable, workmanlike level of scholarship. He’s not going to set the world on fire, but on the other hand I’ve never had any complaints about him.

    Professor Brown has an impressive research record, but I’ve had to call him into my office twice because of his failure to give trigger warnings to students.

    The first time was when he held some kind of debate over abortion, and a prochoice girl who had had an abortion herself was triggered by some of the rhetoric of the prolife speaker. So I had to talk to Professor Brown about that.

    The following semester, I had to call Professor Brown into my office *again.* This time, a black student was triggered when Brown said something about how Africans enslaved each other. The student was triggered because she thought it invalidated her experience of white racism. Brown got very defensive and gave a really snippy speech about academic freedom, which I didn’t appreciate.

    So while I would normally recommend that Brown get the position, I think that the *trigger mandate* which the University recently imposed tilts things against him, and I recommend Jones instead.

    OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Agreed…vote for Jones…

    1. I think Dean Martin would be a lot cooler than that.

      1. +1 Volare

  59. California legislature passes bill banning the sale and display of the Confederate battle flag in government buildings

    California state government departments will be prohibited from selling or displaying items with an image of the Confederate flag under a bill that passed the Assembly on Monday.

    AB2444 by Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton…introduced the bill after his mother saw replica Confederate money being sold at the state Capitol gift shop.

    “Its symbolism in history is directly linked to the enslavement, torture and murder of millions of Americans,” Hall said of the Confederate flag. “The state of California should not be in the business of promoting hate toward others.”

    The only lawmaker to vote against the bill was Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, the leading Republican candidate for governor.

    “We shouldn’t be here picking the kind of speech we like,” he said. “I am not standing here defending the symbol. I am standing here defending the principle that the First Amendment principles should apply in all state buildings, of all places.”

    The bill originally banned all sales of Confederate flag memorabilia on state property.

    He amended the bill to exclude non-government employees and businesses from the ban to avoid violating constitutional free speech protections.

    Gee, awfully considerate of him to include that amendment.

    1. The dispute over admitting California as a non-slaveholding state almost got the Civil War started early.

      After California became a nonslave state, it was still split into proslavery and antislavery factions. One of the proslavers killed an antislaver (US Senator Broderick) in a duel.

    2. “Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton…introduced the bill after his mother saw replica Confederate money being sold at the state Capitol gift shop.

      Its symbolism in history is directly linked to the enslavement, torture and murder of millions of Americans,” Hall said of the Confederate flag. “The state of California should not be in the business of promoting hate toward others.” “

      Ahhh… I wonder what Assemblyman Isadore Hall’s take on the sickle and hammer would be, or maybe.. gold stars on a red background…

    3. Why in the world should California state government departments be selling or displaying items with a Confederate image on them?

      1. Why in the world should they be banned from doing so?

        1. Because the Confederacy was the epitome of American values inverted and the biggest stain on our historical aspirations?

          I bet they do not sell items with Nazi memorabilia in state capitol gift shops in Germany.

          That isn’t to Godwin, the Confederacy was our Nazism. That it gets so much apologia from anyone is amazing, from libertarians it is frankly insane. If we can not come out and say ‘hey, a union of state’s that were united in their desire to perpetuate actual chattel human slavery and who fought tooth and nail to do so is abhorrent to us and our values’ then we deserve to be called hypocrites every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

          Libertarians who cannot resolutely denounce the Confederacy are like leftists who cannot resolutely denounce the USSR.

          1. Bo

            The unprincipled keeper of libertarianism.

            1. Good lord, can you not see the absurdity of a ‘libertarian’ who cannot bring himself to denounce a confederacy of governments dedicated to the retention and spread of actual human slavery? If pointing that out to you strikes you as ‘keeping libertarianism’ that is incredible.

              1. I can denounce the confederacy.

                Confederacy and its flag is still part of US history…makes sense for a US gift shop to carry them.

                Do you oppose the sale of US 48 star flags that flew over Japanese interment camps as well?

                How about a flag of similar design to the one Custar’s troops flew?

              2. Slavery was legal in the U.S. when the southern states seceded.

              3. can you not see the absurdity of a ‘libertarian’ who cannot bring himself to denounce a confederacy of governments dedicated to the retention and spread of actual human slavery?

                If you go far enough down that road you end up at anarchy as the logical conclusion to holding a standard where you can’t celebrate or endorse a symbol associated with a violent and oppressive government.

                The Confederacy indeed seceded in large part to preserve the abominable institution of slavery. But I’m willing to bet since 1865 the United States government has caused more misery to people’s lives than the Confederacy ever did.

                So why do you hold a positive view of our flag, Bo? Don’t you know that same flag dropped nuclear weapons on defenseless cities and waged a brutal war of subjugation against Native Americans and the Filipino people?

                Aren’t morally equivalencies a fun can of worms?

                1. I wouldn’t go so far as to equate the Confederacy with Nazi Germany, but equating it with the US flag is likewise asinine.

                  “But I’m willing to bet since 1865 the United States government has caused more misery to people’s lives than the Confederacy ever did.”

                  That’s pretty tough to quantify, but it’s not a fair comparison given that the Confederacy existed for 4 years, while you’re comparing that to a time period of 150 years for the US.

              4. What does denouncing the Confederacy have to do with banning speech?

                Oh, I see, you’re all for free speech you approve of.

          2. Perhaps we could ban flag burning next, huh Bo.

            Maybe throw in some books you don’t approve of.

            1. The bill bans state government departments from selling and displaying it Francisco, but go ahead and jump to conclusions as usual.

            2. I’m not going to accuse anyone opposed to this as being a Confederate-sympathizer, but there’s nothing unlibertarian about the government deciding what items a government-owned gift shop sells.

          3. Who is this “we” you speak of?

          4. That isn’t to Godwin, the Confederacy was our Nazism.

            I have zero sympathy for the Confederacy and little patience for its apologists, but that statement is just plain asinine.

            Slavery is a stain on our national legacy but it was a normalized institution that predated the nation by centuries.

            The systematic persecution and extermination of entire races of people was something that just sprang up over the course of 12 years under one regime.

            Not even remotely comparable. The fact that there was a Civil War negates your equivalency since it shows that over half the country DID NOT support secession over slavery. So no, US shame over the Confederacy is nowhere close to the shame Germany should feel over the Third Reich.

  60. “My son’s Oedipus complex

    “Every mother wants to be loved. But is it possible my boy loves me a little too much?”

    http://www.salon.com/2014/05/1…..socialflow

    1. Make sure to keep a copy of this article for when he’s a teenager!

    2. Ah, Salon, Slate’s crazy aunt.

      1. Whose crazy aunt?

        Stalin’s?

  61. COCAINE use in Britain is now so high it has contaminated the drinking water, scientific tests have revealed.

    1. Sooo…

      How exactly does it get into the water supply?

      If it gets there the way I think it gets there I think they have something more important to worry about…

      Like Cholera.

      1. Apparently, it’s either from Global Warming, or they all drink from the same canal that they discard their unwanted hookers and blow in, and reached crisis level…

      2. I went on a tour of a sewage treatment plant a few years ago; they said that amphetamines (or metabolites thereof, I can’t remember) passed in urine were getting into the water supply because the molecules are too small for treatment equipment to get it out.

        1. If these metabolites were expelled in urine is it safe to assume they’re innocuous byproducts of cocaine usage for anyone drinking them down the line?

          1. I don’t know, nor do I remember whether they said it was the metabolites, unmetabolized amphetamines, or both,

            1. But it seems like the sort of upsettingly disingenuous obfuscation alarmists are liable to make. “We’ve found cursory evidence of markers for y! Ergo, x!”, and that variety of thinking.

  62. On Mother’s Day: Conservative Catholic Gobbledygook on Contraception

    “Separating the procreative nature of our sexuality from its unitive nature destroys the very thing that makes it unitive. The simple act of contraception radically changes the sexual act transforming it into something completely different, much as a trip to the moon with all its joys, thrills and perils is different from a computer simulation of the same. Those sharing a small capsule to the moon share a real experience in a real way with a real achievement. They become different people united in a unique way. They are true travelers. The participants in the computer simulation share no more than the thrill of a video game, a moment rather than a journey. They are faux travelers. Likewise creative sex and purposely sterile sex are not two variations on a continuum. They are completely different acts. Our own language deceives us in using the word ‘sex’ to refer to both. Sexuality open to creation truly embarks upon a journey in life, one with joys and sorrows, one that changes the lives of its participants beyond their will, and one that requires a continual openness to the life of another.”

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/…..n-marriage

    1. Slate is here to give that story some ‘contrast’…

    2. “Gobbledegook”

      IOW, “The author defends a position held by numerous people over several thousand years, a position repeatedly put in writing for the benefit of readers like myself. But the author’s article is incomprehensible to me. Ergo, *the author* is stupid.”

    3. My late mom, a devout Catholic, wondered why so many young Catholic couples had only 1 to 3 children.

      She would make this observation with a tinge of snark. It is Mother’s Day still and my mommy had some admirable virtues.

    4. Thomism is hard.

      I have a ball, Bo. Perhaps you would like to bounce it.

  63. I fully support the use of trigger warnings in collegiate material. In fact, I’d support seeing it mandated.

    I can’t think of a better way to see the notion lose all momentum than by languishing in academia as a forgettable policy sop to a handful of student activists.

    1. Is this the notion that adopting a ridiculous policy would so expose the ridiculousness as to provoke a backlash and restore common sense?

      1. Actually, no. It satisfies the desires of the activists to Do Something, and demonstrates for everyone else why college is a place to keep your head down and graduate with as few run-ins with the thought police as possible.

        I doubt there’s any restoration in store for American college campuses.

      2. In industrial engineering there is a gadget called a klaxon that is often installed somewhere in the facility. The klaxon is an alarming device with a loud horn and a bright blinking light. It it used to alert the workers that something has gone wrong.

        I have often been the programmer of the discrete output that turns on the klaxon. I tell the owner that he does not want me to trigger the klaxon every time a marble falls on the floor, but he rarely listens.

        Six months later, the owner asks “Why is that darned klaxon on all the time? Everyone ignores it.”

        1. “Six months later, the owner asks “Why is that darned klaxon on all the time? Everyone ignores it.””

          And it won’t help when and if you point out that you explained the process and asked for the appropriate level of cut.
          Nope. You didn’t explain it properly and the owner is correct!

          1. This is business, Sevo.

            Thank you for pointing that out, sir, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I can modify the program so that only a select set of conditions trigger the klaxon. I will prepare a quotation for that work.

            1. “Thank you for pointing that out, sir, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I can modify the program so that only a select set of conditions trigger the klaxon. I will prepare a quotation for that work.”

              VERY nice!
              How about “would you prefer an adjustable level of trigger? We would be happy to offer you an option in the quotation to allow you to determine the trigger-level.”

              1. Something jars my memory… perhaps an iron law, such as it is. Something along the lines of “when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.”

      3. “Notorious G.K.C.|5.11.14 @ 10:10PM|#

        Is this the notion that adopting a ridiculous policy would so expose the ridiculousness as to provoke a backlash and restore common sense?”

        That would be brilliant.

        This is UCSB, however

    1. That’s funny.

  64. More proof the human race needs to be culled.

    1. you first?

  65. In a way, we are all Bobby Draper.

  66. We’re only making plans for Nigel

  67. I’m not sure why students (and parents) would pay to go to a school like this. If they honestly want this sort of “education” they may as well seek out some sort of Jim Jones-like cult leader and have a few good years of brainwashing, indoctrination, developing some weird combination of hypersensitivity to language deemed “hurtful” or otherwise verboten, and so on. At least they wouldn’t come away $100k in debt with nothing else to show for it but a piece of paper and a deep faith in their right never to be offended.

  68. Check out an interesting interview on trigger warnings on The Buterverse podcast. This comedy podcast tackles the subject of trigger warnings in higher ed. The interview itself begins at min 16:50. It’s definitely worth a listen. Episode 001 – Pulling the Trigger can be found at http://www.thebuter.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.