• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

zgoldsmith23 said:
After this statement, I somehow don't think you really understand the purpose of college / higher learning.
Click to expand...

Higher education should encourage lively exchange of ideas. Just as long as those ideas conform to the preordained acceptable liberal / progressive ideology.

I just see the speech codes and banned words as an impediment to exactly that lively exchange of ideas.

More to question, why don't you see them as an impediment?
 
ajn678 said:
Something tells me you got a severe amount of happiness from typing that out in all caps and trying to twist it on other people.
Click to expand...

No, actually, i loathe being put in a position where i feel compelled to point out what these people seem to be fighting for.
 
_Sal said:
can someone please explain to me the "problem" with trigger warnings

a friend of mine was raped repeatedly in her home while growing up

she appreciates trigger warnings of rape and violence since she suffers from PTSD

if she is sitting in a class and they are about to discuss rape...why can't she be warned so she can mentally prepare?

I don't understand and frankly, it irritates me that people can't be bothered to attempt to understand that everyone doesn't come from a Walton's background...some people need a warning and they aren't being weak...in fact what they need to deal with in their daily lives would bring many to their knees

perhaps I don't understand 'trigger warnings'
Click to expand...

Extremely well-said, i emphatically agree. Why are people offended at disclaimers ? It's insanity !
 
Absentglare said:
'They' are not a single entity.

I don't know what laws you're referring to, but laws restricting speech are probably a bad idea. That doesn't mean that employers or college campuses should be prohibited from endorsing their own guidelines for their own constituents. An employer that abides sexual harassment is legally liable. An employer that abides racial bigotry could face an anti-discrimination lawsuit.

Fighting against the idea that people should be considerate is a silly and unnecessary war to wage.
Click to expand...

It's not a fight against being considerate, nor anything else.

It's a fight, or rather chafing is probably more accurate, against the suppression of conservative ideas, their expression, their discussion.

How often have conservative speakers been shouted down, and / or banned from college campus speaking engagements? In a venue that's allegedly to encourage a lively exchange of ideas.

Well, except any conservative ones it seems. That's rank hypocrisy and a steaming pile of bull****.
 
_Sal said:
can someone please explain to me the "problem" with trigger warnings

a friend of mine was raped repeatedly in her home while growing up

she appreciates trigger warnings of rape and violence since she suffers from PTSD

if she is sitting in a class and they are about to discuss rape...why can't she be warned so she can mentally prepare?

I don't understand and frankly, it irritates me that people can't be bothered to attempt to understand that everyone doesn't come from a Walton's background...some people need a warning and they aren't being weak...in fact what they need to deal with in their daily lives would bring many to their knees

perhaps I don't understand 'trigger warnings'
Click to expand...

This is directly addressed in the OP excerpt. The University of Chicago frankly acknowledges that it is sometimes necessary to cause discomfort to accomplish its larger mission.
 
The Social Justice Warrior concept is based around the idea of deciding what other people can do and say to isolate and silence critics of liberal ideas regarding race, religion, and gender. Simply, and I have seen this over and over on Twitter, if you are a white male, you aren't entitled to an opinion on race relations.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but people need to think about the weight it carries by the substance of the words, SJW tactics shut down the discourse altogether by silencing a person based on their race and gender---how ironic is that?
 
eohrnberger said:
It's not a fight against being considerate, nor anything else.
Click to expand...

Fighting against political correctness is, at absolute best, fighting against the idea that people should be excessively considerate with speech.

eohrnberger said:
It's a fight, or rather chafing is probably more accurate, against the suppression of conservative ideas, their expression, their discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't see what conservative views have to do with it.

eohrnberger said:
How often have conservative speakers been shouted down, and / or banned from college campus speaking engagements? In a venue that's allegedly to encourage a lively exchange of ideas.
Click to expand...

I don't see that as the same thing as what college campuses have been doing in the name of political correctness.

If Stanford elects to not host David Duke as a speaker, i don't see how there's anything wrong with that. If students protest David Duke, i don't see what that has to do with "SJW", "trigger warning", "safe space", or "political correctness"- do you think students should be forced to hear speeches from speakers that they do not want to listen to ?

eohrnberger said:
Well, except any conservative ones it seems. That's rank hypocrisy and a steaming pile of bull****.
Click to expand...

I still don't see what this has to do with conservatives. Do you think that no liberal speaker has ever been "shouted down" ?
 
Jack Hays said:
This is directly addressed in the OP excerpt. The University of Chicago frankly acknowledges that it is sometimes necessary to cause discomfort to accomplish its larger mission.
Click to expand...

The disclaimer does not prevent discomfort.

If the presence of a disclaimer causes someone serious discomfort, that discomfort is in the eye of the beholder.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The Social Justice Warrior concept is based around the idea of deciding what other people can do and say to isolate and silence critics of liberal ideas regarding race, religion, and gender. Simply, and I have seen this over and over on Twitter, if you are a white male, you aren't entitled to an opinion on race relations.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but people need to think about the weight it carries by the substance of the words, SJW tactics shut down the discourse altogether by silencing a person based on their race and gender---how ironic is that?
Click to expand...

No, the Social Justice Warrior concept is based around the dishonest lumping together of all forms of political correctness to dishonestly assert that its worst examples magically spoil the whole concept.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The Social Justice Warrior concept is based around the idea of deciding what other people can do and say to isolate and silence critics of liberal ideas regarding race, religion, and gender. Simply, and I have seen this over and over on Twitter, if you are a white male, you aren't entitled to an opinion on race relations.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but people need to think about the weight it carries by the substance of the words, SJW tactics shut down the discourse altogether by silencing a person based on their race and gender---how ironic is that?
Click to expand...

The white male troll decides what other people can do and say to isolate and silence critics of anyone else's ideas regarding race, religion, and gender. Simply, and I have seen this over and over on Twitter, if you aren't a white male, you aren't entitled to an opinion on race relations.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but people need to think about the weight it carries by the substance of the words, white male troll tactics shut down the discourse altogether by silencing a person based on their race and gender---how ironic is that?
 
Absentglare said:
If Stanford elects to not host David Duke as a speaker, i don't see how there's anything wrong with that. If students protest David Duke, i don't see what that has to do with "SJW", "trigger warning", "safe space", or "political correctness"- do you think students should be forced to hear speeches from speakers that they do not want to listen to ?


I still don't see what this has to do with conservatives. Do you think that no liberal speaker has ever been "shouted down" ?
Click to expand...

Number one, you pick a far extreme racist as your example. No one is inviting that idiot to speak on any campus, anywhere.

If someone doesn't want to hear a speaker, they have an option not to show up. The do not have the right to be so disruptive of an opinion they disagree with that no one else can hear them.

Last, no I don't think anyone is shutting down liberal speakers on campus and hasn't been for a good long while.

Your post is just full of mischaracterizations and is blind to what actually happens when a speaker is invited to speak at a campus. Just Google conservative speakers banned or conservative speakers shouted down. It matters because the same people claiming moral superiority in a conversation are frequently SJWs and are working entirely too hard not to let others even consider the other side. Do you really want the future to consist of people that can't even consider alternative opinions?
 
Absentglare said:
No, the Social Justice Warrior concept is based around the dishonest lumping together of all forms of political correctness to dishonestly assert that its worst examples magically spoil the whole concept.
Click to expand...

No, its based around controlling speech.
 
Absentglare said:
Freedom of speech means that other people are free to criticize your speech, too.
Click to expand...

Except SJWs tend to go too far in their criticism.

Look up the infamous Trigglypuff incident. Some fat chick goes bug**** and starts swearing every 5 minutes at a Conservative-backed Anti-PC forum....all because she didn't like what the speakers were saying.

There's another incident where Milo Yiannopoulos is speaking at another Conservative-backed event and some BLM idiot comes in blowing a whistle and screaming BLM platitudes and is sooned joined by some friends.

Want to criticize my speech? Fine! That's your right. Just don't act like a childish moron in the process.
 
_Sal said:
can someone please explain to me the "problem" with trigger warnings

a friend of mine was raped repeatedly in her home while growing up

she appreciates trigger warnings of rape and violence since she suffers from PTSD

if she is sitting in a class and they are about to discuss rape...why can't she be warned so she can mentally prepare?

I don't understand and frankly, it irritates me that people can't be bothered to attempt to understand that everyone doesn't come from a Walton's background...some people need a warning and they aren't being weak...in fact what they need to deal with in their daily lives would bring many to their knees

perhaps I don't understand 'trigger warnings'
Click to expand...

It is not that kind of trigger warnings that universities and people are against. It is against trigger warnings for stupid **** like white privilege or sexism. Warning people for actually potentially disturbing content like rape or extreme violence is legitimate but SJWs have turned it into yet another way they like to silence opinions they do not like. People like your friend should be disgusted at SJWs who have used rape to mean anything from a man looking at you to saying bad things about fictional characters or refusing to recognize their made up gender. SJWs hurt those with actual legitimate issues.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
Fighting against political correctness is, at absolute best, fighting against the idea that people should be excessively considerate with speech.



I don't see what conservative views have to do with it.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't think that you would. Why is that conservative ideas are being accused of being bigoted? Even the ones that aren't, and don't address race or sex in any way are accused of being bigoted and expressing those come with what would most appropriately be called 'punishment'.

Absentglare said:
I don't see that as the same thing as what college campuses have been doing in the name of political correctness.

If Stanford elects to not host David Duke as a speaker, i don't see how there's anything wrong with that. If students protest David Duke, i don't see what that has to do with "SJW", "trigger warning", "safe space", or "political correctness"- do you think students should be forced to hear speeches from speakers that they do not want to listen to ?
Click to expand...

No one forces anyone on campus to attend any presentation from anyone. If it were only Duke, who's clearly a racist and a bigot, that'd be one thing. That doesn't explain

Conservative Writer Ben Shapiro Banned from CSULA

Ben Shapiro banned from DePaul University over security concerns: report

Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation

Last that I recall, students can't ban anyone, so it must be the administration banning conservative speakers, and / or never inviting them.

Intolerant Liberals Shout-Down Conservative Speakers on Campus

New Report: The Push Against Campus Speakers Is Getting More Intense

Protesters shut down Yiannopoulos speech

Intolerant Liberals Shout Down Conservative Speakers on Campus

Commencement speakers: Conservatives need not apply

So all this 'we are tolerant liberals' just isn't so. You preach tolerance, but only for those who echo your party line.

Absentglare said:
I still don't see what this has to do with conservatives. Do you think that no liberal speaker has ever been "shouted down" ?
Click to expand...

Free Inquiry? Not on Campus

Some liberals are well aware of this, and the issues and dangers with with it.

The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech

I'm not asking for much. Just that liberals either stop pretending and claiming to be tolerant, or actually start behaving like actually are tolerant.
 
Roadvirus said:
Want to criticize my speech? Fine! That's your right. Just don't act like a childish moron in the process.
Click to expand...

But see SJW's don't simply just want to just criticize people like Milo's speech.

They want to actively prevent people like him from having a platform to speak in the first place. Because like I said, SJW's don't want to have a discussion or a dialogue because they don't like their views to be challenged.
 
Absentglare said:
What "SJW bull****" ?

Making an effort not to offend people is "SJW bull****" ??

I feel like the people who fight this just wanna run around shouting "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" and it just breaks their fragile, little snowflake hearts that other forces discourage them from doing so.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. See, when i was a kid that was called "common courtesy." Oh, and "If you don't have something nice, don't say nothin at all" some cartoon character berated us. Now because the people you're offending are minorities who those adults dislike, the lesson is "Grow a thicker skin?!"

I'm just sensing some incredible inconsistency here. Look, I'm never going to be friends with some loudmouthed dolt who gets empowered by the admins. Fortunately, such idiots tend to not get admitted to places like U Chicago anyway. But if i did run into them, they would get the same treatment as the loudmouthed dolts on here get - /ignore

And then they'll probably run crying to admins that i won't stand there and listen as they run around yelling "NIGGER" "NIGGER"

Bottom line, these are not people worth giving the time of day to, before, during, or after college life
 
TheGoverness said:
But see SJW's don't simply just want to just criticize people like Milo's speech.

They want to actively prevent people like him from having a platform to speak in the first place. Because like I said, SJW's don't want to have a discussion or a dialogue because they don't like their views to be challenged.
Click to expand...

Well, take a college graduation for instance. There's only so many platforms, so yeah not everyone gets to speak. I feel like these are potentially separate issues and yes, i do believe in freedom *from* speech equally. One of the things i love about this forum - the ignore feature. Otherwise it would be intolerable to me. When i see the jesus freaks on campus i have a right to keep on walking by and you'd better believe i'd ****in think twice of going to a place like Chicago if i got a letter like that basically telling me i have to sit there and take it from every rude asshole
 
Jack Hays said:
This is directly addressed in the OP excerpt. The University of Chicago frankly acknowledges that it is sometimes necessary to cause discomfort to accomplish its larger mission.
Click to expand...

if it were ONLY discomfort, then yeah that would be okay

this is NOT about "discomfort" it's about basic survival

your lack of ability to understand that is something that is a good thing for you but

not so good for individuals who have undergone extreme trauma due to everyday life

in your world you can call them wusses or SJW but in their world they have fought a war of survival that most hopefully will never experience

walk through it with them and you will never again need to question survival from their perspective
 
Carjosse said:
It is not that kind of trigger warnings that universities and people are against. It is against trigger warnings for stupid **** like white privilege or sexism. Warning people for actually potentially disturbing content like rape or extreme violence is legitimate but SJWs have turned it into yet another way they like to silence opinions they do not like. People like your friend should be disgusted at SJWs who have used rape to mean anything from a man looking at you to saying bad things about fictional characters or refusing to recognize their made up gender. SJWs hurt those with actual legitimate issues.
Click to expand...

I am uncertain of the whole thing

I do understand that politically incorrect speech while offending the sensibilities of some also deeply injures others who have already been victimized

so

while I do not agree with censoring, I do understand that those who have been victimized in environments where they should have been safe band together with SJW...why wouldn't they

so where do we draw the line?

how do we reach an agreement because I understand the need to speak out but I also understand the need to protect those whom society has failed repeatedly

and thus I get SJW...they attempt to protect those who have suffered grave injustice within the confines or our society
 
If anyone's interested, here's a good video on Trigger Warnings:



And here's another by Dave Rubin:

 
_Sal said:
I am uncertain of the whole thing

I do understand that politically incorrect speech while offending the sensibilities of some also deeply injures others who have already been victimized

so

while I do not agree with censoring, I do understand that those who have been victimized in environments where they should have been safe band together with SJW...why wouldn't they

so where do we draw the line?

how do we reach an agreement because I understand the need to speak out but I also understand the need to protect those whom society has failed repeatedly

and thus I get SJW...they attempt to protect those who have suffered grave injustice within the confines or our society
Click to expand...

No all they do is find offense where there is none to fulfill their own selfish need for attention, their claims have no ground in reality. SJWs do not want safe spaces to protect people from actually traumatizing actions but rather to protect them from reality and other's opinions. Nothing they do is beneficial to anyone but themselves. They pervert the very idea of things like racism and rape to mean anything that they do not like.
 
there is no 'safe space', everyone does not agree with you, get over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom