How does the World view America these days?

[usagi]

lol you two are like I Saw the Devil

 

 

lol

[Nebraska]

https://youtu.be/FDwwAaVmnf4

[azatoth]

I am triggered by all this white ppl with dreads shaming...I happen to have a soft spot for girls with dreads, am I wrong?

[hello spiral]

yes

[doublename]

Of course you've got a soft spot for dread gyals, they'll fuck for weed & hummus.

Edited April 2, 2016 by doublename

[eugene]

 

let's start with you first, worry about others later, what point of hers doesn't sit well with you?

Well lemme start by saying that I generally agree with SJ end-goals

 

 

 

let's start by establishing that there's no such thing as SJW, it's just a giant strawman constructed by all kinds of mra-ers, alt-right, trump supporters, STEMsters with zero social studies education and so on. instead there are various groups and people who deal with improving various facets of lives of other people, and the tactics and the knowledge and philosophy those tactics based on are very different.

 

I simply think that things like safe spaces and content warnings don't actually serve those end-goals

what you think is irrelevant considering that those belong to those marginalized positions feel like those things serve them and make their lives more comfortable.

 

I think Haidt's point about Pavlovian exposure therapy is correct, and that over-protecting students from certain information will do more harm than good

I mean, so what happens to these kids when they're no longer in University? How can you be an effective doctor/lawyer/English teacher/social worker etc if you're triggered by mention of certain topics?

 

this is not about protecting information from somebody, it's about being aware of your environment and try to avoid hurting/demeaning people in ways you're not really aware of. the idea of course is to extend those to all public spaces, not to have that at unis only.

you're also overemphasizing the situation of being triggered by something, it's not like the said person is going to go insane, it's just that it avoids unnecessary harm. i don't believe that those safe places are safeguarding people from some kind of reality.

 

 

But she didn't shy away from anything (e.g. she resolved to walk the route where she was attacked everyday, she read up about others' experiences, etc) and she healed pretty quickly IMO

I've known a few people permanently scarred by trauma, and shielding their wounds seemed to prevent them from healing

I dunno, I could be wrong

you're wrong in thinking that there are universally effective tactics across context and time to deal with that stuff.

Edited April 2, 2016 by eugene

[goDel]

here eugene, something new to chew on.

 

and please don't forget the point by point thingy on why she did better than haidt in the debate

[eugene]

i'd rather have you argue where she was wrong because i still have no idea. limpy didn't even address her points.

[goDel]

nice try. you claim she won the argument, and you offered to explain why. i don't see any other reason for you to not doing that than to chicken away from some bs. i'm honestly thinking this was your aprils fools.

[eugene]

i'm not gonna waste a whole weekend now deconstructing a 30 min talk, if you have some specific issue then ask away and i will address it. i don't really know what part you are having trouble with, to me her being on point and sharp on all questions/issues is pretty self evident.

Edited April 2, 2016 by eugene

[doublename]

I agree with Haidt

 

I Agree with student

 

lol, explain yourself

 

no, explain yourself

 

I agree with Haidt

 

That is wrong

 

Explain yourself

 

I agree with student

[goDel]

she clearly showed not understanding haidt arguments to begin with. and she explicitly said so ("i don't understand..."). she didn't even try to understand, imo. she was just rehashing her point that teachers should be completely responsible/accountable for potentially "hurting" students because of some unknown but possible backstory of said "hurt" student. And that teachers should do everything to avoid hurting students. Even if that means avoiding stuff that could be misinterpreted. (eg. the "gay" example haidt gave).

 

@eugene: you DID offer to waste your whole weekend btw. i'm not pulling any rabbit out of a hat or anything.

Edited April 2, 2016 by goDel

[eugene]

I agree with Haidt

 

I Agree with student

 

lol, explain yourself

 

no, explain yourself

 

I agree with Haidt

 

That is wrong

 

Explain yourself

 

I agree with student

the last 2 don't exist though, limpy is yet to reply and i'm yet to reply to that reply. Edited April 2, 2016 by eugene

[eugene]

she clearly showed not understanding haidt arguments to begin with. and she explicitly said so ("i don't understand...") and she didn't even try to understand, imo.

 

i don't know what you're referring to with her "i don't understand", where is that part in a video?

 

 

she was just rehashing her point that teachers should be completely responsible/accountable for potentially "hurting" students because of some unknown but possible backstory of said "hurt" student. And that teachers should do everything to avoid hurting students.

she kept rehashing it because haidt didn't seem to get it and used some boogeyman anecdotes instead.

where is the problem in making teachers/professors aware of their environment and the damage they might cause?

 

Even if that means avoiding stuff that could be misinterpreted. (eg. the "gay" example haidt gave).

 

she didn't say that, quite the contrary she repeated the point about having "uncomfortable conversations".

 

 

@eugene: you DID offer to waste your whole weekend btw. i'm not pulling any rabbit out of a hat or anything.

 

i'll offer my whole weekend if you/others will be challenging me to address specific points, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Edited April 2, 2016 by eugene

[doublename]

 

I agree with Haidt

I Agree with student

lol, explain yourself

no, explain yourself

I agree with Haidt

That is wrong

Explain yourself

I agree with student

the last 2 don't exist though, limpy is yet to reply and i'm yet to reply to that reply.

 

 

 

I'm extrapolating from an encyclopedic knowledge of Internet Rhetoric.

Edited April 2, 2016 by doublename

[goDel]

 

she clearly showed not understanding haidt arguments to begin with. and she explicitly said so ("i don't understand...") and she didn't even try to understand, imo.

i don't know what you're referring to with her "i don't understand", where is that part in a video?

 

4:30 her response: i dont understand... which was pretty obvious considering her follow up

 

 

she was just rehashing her point that teachers should be completely responsible/accountable for potentially "hurting" students because of some unknown but possible backstory of said "hurt" student. And that teachers should do everything to avoid hurting students.

she kept rehashing it because haidt didn't seem to get it and used some boogeyman anecdotes instead.

where is the problem in making teachers/professors aware of their environment and the damage they might cause?

 

there was no problem in making teachers aware and having that debate. there was a problem in forcing teachers to do anything to avoid stuff like this happening. haidt said a couple of times it was perfectly fine to create an environment of more awareness.

 

 

Even if that means avoiding stuff that could be misinterpreted. (eg. the "gay" example haidt gave).

she didn't say that, quite the contrary she repeated the point about having "uncomfortable conversations".

 

she did, and she also repeated that teachers should be completely accountable for "triggering" students. or even potentially tiggering. 18:30 and note her response from 20:30 on. the whole idea that uncomfortable conversations are good, but at the same time the teacher should be completely accountable is a contradiction. students could sue teachers for triggering them - they are accountable - but at the same time having uncomfortable conversations are supposed to be part of the process?

 

 

@eugene: you DID offer to waste your whole weekend btw. i'm not pulling any rabbit out of a hat or anything.

i'll offer my whole weekend if you/others will be challenging me to address specific points, otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

[eugene]

4:30 her response: i dont understand... which was pretty obvious considering her follow up

that referred only to his bronx analogy which was indeed pretty stupid and missed the point entirely, not other points of his. you're pulling her "not understanding" something well out of context.

 

 

there was no problem in making teachers aware and having that debate. there was a problem in forcing teachers to do anything to avoid stuff like this happening. haidt said a couple of times it was perfectly fine to create an environment of more awareness.

 

i'm not quite getting your point here, it's ok to create awareness but not ok to take it to the next logical step and change particular practices given that awareness?

 

she did, and she also repeated that teachers should be completely accountable for "triggering" students. or even potentially tiggering. 18:30 and note her response from 20:30 on. the whole idea that uncomfortable conversations are good, but at the same time the teacher should be completely accountable is a contradiction. students could sue teachers for triggering them - they are accountable - but at the same time having uncomfortable conversations are supposed to be part of the process?

 

 

@18:30 - if haidt is skipping topics due to his inability to present them in a manner that doesn't hurt people then it makes him a shitty professor, doesn't it?

 

as for her response, she doesn't even mention anything about teacher being "completely accountable", you're putting words in her mouths . she's not into accusing anyone here and defending the person who came up with that campaign against haidt, she just very elegantly readjust the spotlight on the people who might be actually hurt instead of constantly talking about how difficult it is for the professors.

 

[LimpyLoo]

"In a manner that doesn't hurt people"

 

This is the problem: people are hurt by everything. Showing a video where someone says "I wouldn't personally wanna watch men have sex" will get you called before a disciplinary board. It doesn't matter how reasonable the "hurt" person is, they are always right. And if the entire generation is being taught that their over-sensitivity is valid, then that is a recipe for fucking disaster.

 

This "held accountable" rhetoric is some communist-censorship shit.

"this is not up for debate...try to do so and I'll report you"

Imagine being a professor and trying to teach knowing that a few students have their fingers poised over the "report to authorities" button if they feel less than 100% validated

This is madness, it's literal fascism

[Candiru]

Dude, the media has been cultivating a generation of useless wimps for a little bit now. It's no accident. Teach your kid about trigger warnings if you want them to live in your basement until they are 45.

 

Soon, we'll have a generation that is even less capable of fighting back or doing anything, really.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Candiru

[Audioblysk]

Yeah, I think if that young woman was actually holding any weight in her argument the rest of the panel would have backed her up... But nobody did. Wonder why?

 

These professors have no idea if one in the thousands of students they teach that quarter is going to be offended by what they say because of beliefs, past experiences or even brutal trauma suffered previously in their lives. Also, it's not their job to coddle people through course material or opinions that may conflict with a certain students ideas, traumas or experiences. It's really as simple as that

 

Being ignorant to a student coming up and telling them they have an issue with something or berating them, at that point, the situation should require some administration intervention to create a dialogue -- but as he pointed out, that hardly ever happens with the type of people that will try to inflict damage on a teachers career and course by making such huge generalized statements about them professionally just based on how content affected them - the victimized (or 'marginalized) individual -

 

So yeah, it's total horseshit IMO and completely against the natural reality of the world where things don't go your way all the time and you have to face adversity... You know, that whole 'being a well rounded person with valuable life experiences' business... Not the urine-soaked victim mentality that is bred within those who have never had to face much adversity but fight for others needs to have other people just avoid bad things cuz they're bad.

[LimpyLoo]

Just look at the psychological literature on "hardiness" and "resilience" and "catastrophising" and it's clear why this is the wrong road to go down.

[eugene]

"In a manner that doesn't hurt people"

 

This is the problem: people are hurt by everything. Showing a video where someone says "I wouldn't personally wanna watch men have sex" will get you called before a disciplinary board. It doesn't matter how reasonable the "hurt" person is, they are always right. And if the entire generation is being taught that their over-sensitivity is valid, then that is a recipe for fucking disaster.

 

This "held accountable" rhetoric is some communist-censorship shit.

"this is not up for debate...try to do so and I'll report you"

Imagine being a professor and trying to teach knowing that a few students have their fingers poised over the "report to authorities" button if they feel less than 100% validated

This is madness, it's literal fascism

there are some childish examples, no need to construct some massive, horrible threat to intellectual development of humanity out of those anecdotes. the whole thing is basically something like an enhancement of not saying nigger and fag in public and being aware of your public, nothing more. professors who make a big deal out of it are either incompetent and are incapable of dealing with such complaints in a convincing manner head on, or simply want to act as some martyr-knight in some faux crusade.

Edited April 2, 2016 by eugene

[LimpyLoo]

Here's some of the (quite robust) literature on Hardiness and PTSD

 

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA614766

 

Who thrives under stress?

The evidence very clearly says: individuals who rate high in Hardiness.

Who is least likely to heal from PTSD?

Individuals who rate low in Hardiness.

[goDel]

i'm not quite getting your point here, it's ok to create awareness but not ok to take it to the next logical step and change particular practices given that awareness?

perhaps this is the part where different point of views are most in disagreement. one side thinks it's absolutely normal, or logical, that once a trigger-point has been "established" (as if they're unmovable points/norms/values in social space) it should be addressed such that it wil never ever happen again, or something. at least, that's how i understand your logic to be. if that's the case, the other side of the argument is arguing that it is impossible. and even if it wasn't impossible, it would be counterproductive.

[eugene]

 

i'm not quite getting your point here, it's ok to create awareness but not ok to take it to the next logical step and change particular practices given that awareness?

perhaps this is the part where different point of views are most in disagreement. one side thinks it's absolutely normal, or logical, that once a trigger-point has been "established" (as if they're unmovable points/norms/values in social space) it should be addressed such that it wil never ever happen again, or something. at least, that's how i understand your logic to be. if that's the case, the other side of the argument is arguing that it is impossible. and even if it wasn't impossible, it would be counterproductive.

 

 

it's not rocket science - you've learned not to say nigger in class now learn to not make remarks that will offend/cause harm or discomfort other groups of people in particular contexts. those trigger points are not static either, they are very context specific, dependent on the ways of communication of professor with particular public, their degree of closeness and so on.

Edited April 2, 2016 by eugene